Preamble

The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Windermere Gas and Water Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Gloucester Corporation Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; an Amendment made; Bill to be read the Third time.

Sandown Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the Third time.

Staffordshire Potteries Water Board Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Dover Gas Bill [Lords],

Maidenhead Water Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. With reference to the last Order of Private Business for half-past Seven, I do not know whether it is possible now to make any kind of appeal, as this is a day under the guillotine—whether it could not be taken another day.

Mr. SPEAKER: This Order comes on at Eleven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

OFFICERS, NORTH-WEST FRONTIER (HOUSING.)

Mr. SANDEMAN: 1.
asked the Undersecretary of State for India what steps
if any, are being taken properly to house officers and their families serving in the North-West Frontier Province of India.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): Enquiries have been made which show that no particular difficulty is reported with regard to the housing of officers in any station in the North-West Frontier Province except Peshawar, where measures have already been taken to relieve the situation created by the shortage of bungalows. My noble Friend has asked for a report on the general question of housing, and will continue to keep in touch with developments.

ARMY OFFICERS' PAY.

Mr. SANDEMAN: 2.
asked the Undersecretary of State for India on what grounds the civil privilege of remitting money to England at 2s. per rupee is denied to officers of the Indian Army.

Earl WINTERTON: Indian Army pay is constructed on a different basis from that of civil pay, and revisions of the one do not necessarily entail revision of the other. Sterling Overseas pay, the approximate equivalent of the concession described in the question, was granted to civil officers of non-Asiatic domicile as part of a general revision of civil pay in 1924 to assist them in meeting family expenses at home. Indian Army pay was separately revised in 1926 on a scale which was decided to be adequate. The case of the married officer is met by the grant of marriage allowances, which are not given in the civil services.

LAND REVENUE, BENGAL (SUSPENSIONS).

Mr. DAY: 3.
asked the Under-secretary of State for India whether he has received any reply from the Government of India with reference to the suggestion brought to their notice as to the advisability of issuing a statement of their policy with regard to the suspension and remissions of land revenue in the Jubblepore district, in Chota-Nagpur, and other parts of Bengal on account of the failure of the rabi crops in these districts and the consequent distress; and whether he has received any further information regarding the decision of the malguzars to forgo the rents due to them?

Sir FRANK MEYER: On a point of Order. This question contains a word which is not part of the English language and is not generally known to Members. May I ask whether questions should not be so framed as to be comprehensible to Members of the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: To what word does the hon. Baronet refer?

Sir F. MEYER: To the word "malguzars."

Mr. SPEAKER: My knowledge of the language is not sufficient to enable me to express an opinion.

Earl WINTERTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negation. No information has been received regarding the decision of the malguzars. In the three northern districts of the Central Provinces affected by scarcity, suspensions of land revenue, rents and cesses have been granted estimated at approximately Rs. 13,00,000. I will place in the Library copy of a communiqué issued by the Government of Bengal regarding scarcity in parts of certain districts of that province, and the measures taken to deal with it.

Mr. DAY: Is this word correctly stated in the question as malguzars, and, if so, can the noble Lord inform the House exactly what they are?

Earl WINTERTON: The word is correctly stated. It would take a somewhat more lengthy explanation than is customary at present fully to inform the House what the position of these people is, but in a word I might generally say they are in the position of landlords.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is the appropriate word not mulguzzars?

Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Gentleman is a better hand at the pronunciation of foreign words than I am, but I think we may accept the pronunciation given by the hon. Gentleman who asked the question.

DETENUS.

Mr. LANSBURY: 4.
asked the Undersecretary of State for India the number of persons at present detained in prison, or otherwise held under restraint, in India under Regulation III of the 1818 Act?

Earl WINTERTON: The number is seven.

MAGISTRATE, LAHORE.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what action has been taken with regard to the magistrate censured by the Chief Justice of Lahore in his judgment delivered on 18th November, 1927?

Earl WINTERTON: No, Sir. As soon as I am in a position to do so, I will inform the hon. Member, so that he may put down a question.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: In view of the very long delay and very grave dissatisfaction that is felt locally on the matter, will the Noble Lord expedite the decision of this very important question?

Earl WINTERTON: On 11th June, I informed the hon. Member that it was difficult to give even an approximate date upon which a decision would be reached. I can assure him that no avoidable delay has taken place. It is a very complicated question which has to be considered by a number of different authorities.

ACCIDENT, MUDIDIH COLLIERY.

Mr. MARDY JONES: 5
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India (1) whether he has now received a Report of the inquiry into the cause of the accident which occurred at the Mudidih colliery, Shairia coalfield, India, in April, 1928, and, if so, will he make it available to Members in the Library: and, if it is not yet available, what is the attributed cause of the accident;
(2) what was the total number of persons killed and the total number of persons injured, and how many of them were women and children, in the accident at the Mudidih colliery, Shairia coalfield, India, which occurred during the month of April, 1928;
(3) whether he is aware that the general secretary of the Indian Colliery Employés' Union was refused permission by the colliery management to visit the place of the serious fatal accident which occurred at the Mudidih colliery, Shairia coalfield, in April this year; and will he take the necessary steps to empower any duly accredited official of the Indian
Miners' Union to visit the place of accident in or about the mines on future occasions?

Earl WINTERTON: My Noble Friend has no information, beyond what has appeared in the public Press, on the subject of these three questions, but will inquire as to the facts.

Oral Answers to Questions — KING IBN SAUD (CONVERSATIONS).

Mr. DAY: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any arrangements have been made for the resumption of the conversations between His Majesty King Ibn Saud and Sir Gilbert Clayton; and can he give the House any particulars?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the right hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Buxton) on 13th June, to which I have nothing to add.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (PRISON OFFENCES).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Palestine Government has rejected the demand of the Palestine Labour Federation for the abolition of flogging in the Palestine prisons and for the special treatment of political offenders?

Mr. AMERY: I have not received the text of the communication addressed to the Palestine Government by the General Federation of Jewish Labour, which is no doubt what the right hon. and gallant Member refers to, nor the terms of the Palestine Government's reply. If the Federation has demaded that all flogging for prison offences shall be abolished, the reason why this has not been acceded to is, I think, obvious, for the power to inflict flogging as a punishment for certain prison offences is generally recognised as necessary in order to maintain discipline in prisons.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the punishment of flogging in prisons has recently been abandoned even in Turkey, and should not we follow suit in Palestine and abolish this form of torture? In the second place, would the right hon. Gentle
man deal with the second part of the question as to the special treatment of political offenders? Is he aware that recently there has been a sort of heresy hunt in Palestine against Communists, and will he stop this sort of action by the Palestine Government?

Mr. AMERY: I am not aware that there has been anything in the nature of a Communist hunt, but I think the general opinion is that for offences of violence committed in prison against prison discipline the punishment of flogging is necessary.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman issue instructions that the punishment of flogging is only to be inflicted for the same offences as in this country, namely, grave personal assault?

Mr. AMERY: I will look into that matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMAM OF THE YEMEN.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why an ultimatum has been presented to the Imam to vacate the territories of the Aden hinterland: and whether any bombing has taken place at Taiz?

Mr. RAMSDEN: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make a statement regarding recent events in the Yemen?

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to bring to an end the strained relations and hostilities existing between His Majesty's Government and the Imam of Yemen; what are the subjects under dispute: and whether the Imam has made any proposals that are intended to settle the situation?

Mr. AMERY: On the 12th March last, I made a full statement in the House on the relations between His Majesty's Government and the Imam of the Yemen, and described the action which it had been found necessary to take. That action resulted in the return of the Protectorate Sheikhs who had been kidnapped and in a request by the Imam for a truce of thirty days for general negotiations. The request was granted, and the truce took effect from the 25th March. The Acting Resident at Aden
proceeded to Taiz in Yemen territory to open negotiations, but found that the Imam's representative there was empowered to carry on informal discussion only and not to negotiate a treaty. Subsequently, the Imam was informed that His Majesty's Government were prepared to conclude immediately a brief treaty confined to (1) recognition by His Majesty's Government of the Imam's independence in the Yemen; (2) recognition by the Imam of the frontier of the Aden Protectorate with certain modifications in his favour; and (3) a promise to the Imam of such assistance as His Majesty's Government could render him within the limit of their international obligations.
The truce was extended to the 1st June to give the Imam time to consider this proposal. On his asking for a further extension to the 17th July, the Imam was informed that this extension would be given provided that, as an earnest of good faith, he evacuated the town of Dhala by the 20th June. This he failed to do. Consequently, demonstration flights were made and warnings dropped giving four days' notice, and on the 25th June air action was recommenced.
Air action has been taken in all on 14 several days, including one on which an attack was delivered on Taiz. The Royal Air Force suffered no casualties during such action.
I should like to repeat that His Majesty's Government are anxious, as they always have been, to come to a settlement with the Imam on honourable terms which will satisfy the just claims of both parties and place their future relations on a friendly and neighbourly basis. But no settlement could be acceptable to His Majesty's Government which did not take account of their obligations towards the tribes on their own side of the frontier.

Mr. MALONE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that these ultimatums and bombings are really the best way of bringing about a settlement?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir, in these circumstances.

Miss WILKINSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why he goes round
killing perfectly innocent natives when he cannot get on with the Imam of Yemen? Why not leave the natives alone?

Mr. AMERY: The bombing is at places where the Imam's armed forces are stationed.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What steps are taken to see that non-combatants and women are not bombed?

Mr. AMERY: They are given full notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH EAST AFRICA (ENGLISH LANGUAGE).

Miss WILKINSON: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that in British East Africa it is a crime punishable by law to teach a native child to read English without an official licence, and that the teaching of English to native children in Uganda is to be stopped except to such children whose future work, such as telegraphists, is likely to require it; and whether he has given his sanction to this policy?

Mr. AMERY: Under the Education Ordinance of Kenya no person may, except in special circumstances, be appointed as a teacher in any Government, assisted or private school, who does not hold a certificate of competency or a licence to teach issued or recognised by the Education Department. I am not, however, aware of any penalty attaching by law specifically to the teaching of English without a licence. In Uganda the Governor has, after much consideration, proposed that Swahili should replace the various tribal languages as the medium of instruction in elementary vernacular schools in various parts of the country, and the matter is to be discussed with him during his visit to this country. I am not aware that any proposal is under consideration to curtail existing facilities for the teaching of English to native children in Uganda.

Miss WILKINSON: Is it not a fact that the teaching of English to natives in these territories is definitely discouraged by the Government, and, in view of the fact that this country belongs to the British Commonwealth of Nations,
can the right hon. Gentleman say why they should be prevented from learning the English language?

Mr. AMERY: I think the hon. Member is mistaken. I do not think there is any discouragement of natives learning English There is discouragement of unqualified teachers attempting to teach anything, and there is also the question of teaching the natives in the lowest classes in the schools through their vernacular, which is much more easy for them to understand.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the precise significance of the word "specifically" in the answer to the original question? What modification does that imply?

Mr. AMERY: It simply means that there is not a legal penalty attaching to the teaching of English.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a knowledge of English is the best protection these natives can have against exploitation, and will he see that there is no encouragement in this apparent direction of keeping the natives ignorant of the English language?

Mr. AMERY: I do not think there is anything like that.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is this the new Imperialism, to discourage the tongue of Shakespeare and Milton?

Oral Answers to Questions — JAMAICA (PRISON ADMINISTRATION).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the reorganisation of labour and the revision of the scale of diet in Kingston General Penitentiary recommended by the Commission of Inquiry into Prison Administration in Jamaica have been carried out; what was the average daily population of the penitentiary in 1927; how many prisoners were punished during the year; and how many of these were flogged?

Mr. AMERY: I have received no information later than that conveyed in the reply to the hon. Member's question on
28th November except that the number of prisoners flogged in 1927 was three, but I am asking for a further report.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Arising out of the first part of the question, do I understand that the Minister is not certain whether these recommendations have been put into operation yet?

Mr. AMERY: I think that most of the main recommendations have been put into operation.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Can the right hon. Gentleman obtain accurate information and let me know?

Mr. AMERY: Yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEAD SEA SALTS (CONCESSION).

Captain FOXCROFT: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government has yet decided to whom the Dead Sea potash concession is to be granted?

Mr. AMERY: As I have already stated, it has been decided in principle to giant the concession to Major Tulloch and Mr. Novomeysky, provided that suitable terms and conditions can be agreed upon, and that they furnish satisfactory financial guarantees.

Captain FOXCROFT: Can my right hon. Friend say whether His Majesty's Government have ever had negotiations with any British syndicate, suitable financially or otherwise?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, the matter was open for tender, and several groups did apply, and this particular group was chosen.

Mr. HARDIE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that, as a Government, it is better to keep this in their own hands in the interests of world peace and for the benefit of home industries?

Mr. AMERY: I doubt whether this kind of speculative industry could be run by the Government.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this question has been going on for ten years, and that, meanwhile, the price of potash remains unnecessarily high owing to the German monopoly, and cannot he give a time limit to these concessionnaires?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir. I am trying to expedite the matter as much as possible, but I must demur to the statement that this matter has been going on for ten years or anything like that time.

Mr. HARDIE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the best way to kill the speculative element he is talking about is for the Government to retain this matter in their own hands?

Mr. AMERY: It might kill the industry as well as the speculative element.

HON. MEMBERS: Why?

Mr. HARDIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain to this House in what way he can kill an industry by retaining what is fundamental?

Mr. MACLEAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman fixed a time limit for these particular individuals who have been offered the concession to give the satisfactory terms he has stated?

Mr. AMERY: As I have explained, I am anxious to expedite the matter as much as possible, but I must not be understood to imply that the difficulties remain entirely with the concessionnaires. We have had to consult the Palestine and Trans-Jordan Governments, and consider other problems as well.

Mr. STEPHEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether his colleagues in the Government are in agreement with him that this Government are not fit to run anything?

Mr. SPEAKER: That matter does not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHERN RHODESIA (FRANCHISE).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, seeing that the property qualification for the franchise in Southern Rhodesia has been raised from £150 to £500, His Majesty's Government has considered the question whether this involves discrimination against native owners of house property; and, if so, what action it is proposed to take?

Mr. AMERY: The provision in the Southern Rhodesia Electoral Bill raising the property qualification from £150 to
£500 would apply both to Europeans and natives. I find, however, that in the course of the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill the Premier stated that he proposed to move an Amendment, if it was not moved by any other Member, reducing this qualification of £500 to the present qualification, but that the matter was entirely one for the Members of the House to decide. I have not yet heard what is the present position with regard to the Bill.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this decision affects the number of natives acquiring the vote in Rhodesia and that at present, with £150, it is possible for a handful of natives to get the vote, but, if it is raised to £500, no coloured man can get the vote?

Mr. AMERY: I quite realise that the high property qualification would diminish the number of natives eligible for the vote, but, at any rate, there is no racial discrimination at all.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not the right hon. Gentleman's duty, in looking after the interests of the natives of Rhodesia, to see that this apparently harmless alteration which would, in fact, seriously affect the position of the natives, is not made?

Mr. MACLEAN: Does this not show discrimination against the native by increasing the property qualification from £150 to £500?

Mr. AMERY: No, Sir. It is not an increase for natives only: it is an increase for all voters.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not showing discrimination against a section of the community who cannot raise the necessary sum?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to make representations, even at this late hour, to the Rhodesian Government, as this is very serious for the natives?

Mr. AMERY: I have to consider very carefully how far the terms under which I am justified in intervening in the affairs of a self-governing Colony like Rhodesia would include this particular matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW RECIPIENTS (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRISH FREE STATE).

Lieut.-Colonel MclNNES SHAW: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he is now in a position to state how far the negotiations have gone between his Department and the Irish Free State regarding the mutual repatriation of persons in receipt of poor relief?

Mr. AMERY: I would invite my hon. and gallant Friend's attention to the reply which I gave on the 25th June to the right hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir R. Rodd).

Mr. BUCHANAN: Have negotiations taken place with the Northern Ireland Government also, or are they confined to the Irish Free State?

Mr. AMERY: I am afraid that question must be put on the Paper.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Would it not be the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to conduct negotiations for both Governments?

Mr. AMERY: No.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD.

Mr. DAY: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will give particulars of how the amount of £4,633 was spent under the heading of Cinema in the accounts of the Empire Marketing Board for the financial year 1927?

Mr. AMERY: With the hon. Member's permission I will arrange to circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. DAY: In the preparation of these accounts in future, will fuller information be given, for the benefit of hon. Members?

Mr. AMERY: I think pretty full information is given, but I am always glad to provide more detailed information if any hon. Member wishes it.

Mr. DAY: In future accounts may we know under what headings the money spent for cinema is allocated, whether for the making of films, distribution of same, or the hire of cinemas far displaying films for the Empire Marketing Board?

Mr. AMERY: I will see what can be done.

Following is the answer:

The expenditure in question from the Empire Marketing Fund in the financial year 1027 brought to account up to the 31st March, 1928, was made up, in detail, as follows:


(1) Empire Marketing Board Cinema at the Imperial Institute (expenditure incurred by the Department of Overseas Trade and repaid from the Empire Marketing Fund):


Capital expenditure:
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Conversion of Ceylon pavilion at the Institute, purchase of equipment (projector, switchboard, etc.)
3,935
17
3





Maintenance expenditure:








Salaries of operators, hire, carriage and insurance of films, power charges, incidental expenses, etc
533
3
5









4,469
0
8


(2) Direct expenditure from the Empire Marketing Fund:








Cost of cinema apparatus
61
19
3





Hire of films
26
2
4





Gantry at Victoria Station for daylight projector
24
16
0





Customs duty and insurance charges
42
1
10





Carriage costs
3
19
10





Incidental expenses
5
19
7









164
18
10






£4,633
19
6

MERCHANDISE, MARKS ACT.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what imported products are now required to be distinguished under the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Act?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): The answer is rather long, and perhaps my hon. Friend will agree to my circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Under the provisions of the Merchandise Marks (Imported Goods) Order, 1927, the following classes and descriptions of imported goods are required to bear an indication of origin:

(1) Gold and silver leaf; (2) woven labels; (3) wire netting and woven wire; (4) mill bobbins; (5) felt hats and felt hat hoods; (6) iron and steel wire and wire nails and staples; (7) water taps and metal fittings; (8) rubber tyres and tubes.

A further Order entitled "The Merchandise Marks (Imported Goods) No. 1 Order, 1928," will shortly be made. It deals with the following classes and descriptions of imported goods:

(1) Mowing machines; (2) gloves; (3) furniture and cabinet ware; (4) shuttles; (5) boots, shoes and slippers.

Two draft Orders are still before this House. One covers (1) honey; and (2) fresh apples; and the other covers (1) pottery; (2) insulated electric cables and wires; (3) electric incandescent lamps; (4) enamelled zinc sheets; (5) glue and gelatine; (6) tooth brushes and shaving brushes; (7) cast-iron porcelain-enamelled baths.

BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH.

Miss WILKINSON: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what aid, financial or otherwise, the Government is giving to promote research into the practical application to industry of the science of biochemistry?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: A considerable amount of biochemical research is conducted by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, particularly in relation to its investigations on the preservation and transport of foodstuffs. The Department also makes grants to a number of co-operative research associations, organised by various industries to investigate their own special problems, whose work is partly of a biochemical nature. As this work is closely linked up with other work not directly biochemical in nature, it is impossible to estimate its cost separately.

SHALE OIL INDUSTRY.

Mr. SHINWELL: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has
received representations from shale oil interests in respect of the need for Government assistance if the industry is to survive; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second does not therefore arise.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is it not a fact that representations have been made to the Treasury, by the Scottish Oils Agency, Limited, within the past three weeks in respect of the need for further Government contracts?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I should have notice of that question.

Mr. SHINWELL: My original question was as to whether representations had been made, to which the hon. Gentleman replied that no such representations were made. I now ask him about a specific point, and he asks me to give him notice and to supply him with further evidence.

Mr. WILLIAMS: My answer was regarding representations made as to the condition of the industry. I am asked now whether efforts have been made to obtain contracts from the Admiralty, which seems to be an entirely different matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — CLEARING OFFICE FOR ENEMY DEBTS.

Mr. KELLY: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Trade at what period one of the two senior accountants now Employed in the clearing office for enemy debts was director of the Repatriation Department of the Australian Imperial Force?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I regret that the answer given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member on the 26th June, by a clerical error, gave the previous Employer of the officer in question and not the post held by him. His rank in the office of the director of the Repatriation Department of the Australian Imperial Force was that of Staff Captain.

Mr. KELLY: Have any further investigations taken place in regard to the conduct of this Department?

Mr. WILLIAMS: That point does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

Mr. KELLY: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the grounds for the dismissal of the officer who recently submitted a memorandum complaining of the administration of the enemy debts office; and why the Department has refused to give him the reasons for such dismissal?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The officer in question was Employed on a temporary basis, and in common with other temporary officers he was appointed subject to the condition that his employment could be terminated by one week's notice on the part of the officer and by one month's notice on the part of the Department, given at any time without cause assigned. The procedure followed by the Department in terminating the appointment of this officer was in accordance with the condition stated above.

Mr. KELLY: Is it yet in the mind of the Department to give this man the reasons for his dismissal, particularly as he presented a memorandum to the President of the Board of Trade, complaining of the conduct of his superior officer?

Mr. WILLIAMS: That seems to raise a separate question, which was dealt with by my right hon. Friend last week.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the hon. Member not think that it is rather unfortunate that an officer of his Department who prefers a complaint in the regular manner should be dismissed?

Mr. WILLIAMS: On Thursday of last week, my right hon. Friend suggested that, if the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) wished to raise this question further, he might raise it in the form of a specific allegation, which could be tested.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Member not aware that this is a specific allegation? I heard what was said last Thursday, and I make the allegation now. I say that an officer made a complaint and that he was dismissed for it, which I say is improper.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Has the hon. Member looked into this question sufficiently to assure the House that the fact that this official submitted a memorandum formed no part of the reason for his dismissal?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am sorry that the case of this officer's dismissal has been brought into question, because personally I have no doubt that undue consideration has been given to him.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Can the hon. Member answer my question? Has he satisfied himself that the fact that this man submitted a memorandum was no part of the reason for his dismissal?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I have no reason for satisfying myself on that point.

Mr. KELLY: In view of the dissatisfaction and the doubt there is in the case, will this matter be further investigated?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I do not know that there is any doubt, and I am not aware that there is any dissatisfaction; but, if the hon. Member desires anything to be investigated, will he kindly say what it is that he desires to be investigated?

Mr. KELLY: Is it not a fact that a memorandum was presented to the Department containing charges of a serious nature, and are not those charges which ought to be investigated?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question has been asked several times.

Mr. KELLY: 26.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether application, on the ground of statelessness, for the release of sequestrated property are dealt with by the Enemy Debts Department on the basis of the applicant's legal claim to statelessness; how many such cases have been dealt with by compromise between the Department and Mr. Samuel Cromer, acting as agent for the applicant; and what is the total sum involved in such compromise releases?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In 19 cases where applications have been made to the Department for the Administration of German Property for release of property on the ground of statelessness the cases, after full consideration of the legal position and with the approval of the Board of Trade, have been dealt with by way of compromise with Mr. Samuel Cromer, acting as agent for the applicant. The total sum involved is approximately £880,636.

Mr. KELLY: Seeing that these cases have to be decided upon the question
whether a man is a citizen of a particular State, can the hon. Member say how they can compromise as to a man being a member of the State or not? How is it possible to compromise as to citizenship of an enemy State, or not?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I imagine that the compromise related to amounts.

Mr. KELLY: Is it not a fact that these questions are decided on the citizenship of a particular State, apart from the amount? Is it possible to compromise as to whether a man is a citizen of Germany or not?

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: Any further questions must be put on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONE SERVICE (ADVERTISING).

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 27.
asked the Postmaster-General what sum is expended annually in bringing to the notice of the public the advantages of the telephone service and the facilities offered to subscribers?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): About £120,000.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Does the Noble Lord think that that is an adequate or commercial appropriation, and, if not, would it be a justification for charging the Department with being a failure?

Viscount WOLMER: Yes, Sir; I think it is adequate appropriation.

Mr. HARDIE: Can the Noble Lord tell us the space given to alcoholic liquor and the space devoted to advertising the telephone?

EX-SERVICE MAN (WAGES).

Mr. W. THORNE: 28.
asked the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the fact that the wage of a Post Office sorter Employed at Mount Pleasant at a weekly wage of £2 17s. 6d. was reduced by 10s owing to physical disability; if he will state whether this is the general practice of his department; how many employés are similarly graded;
and if he will state whether they do the same work as other sorters who have no physical disability.

Viscount WOLMER: The officer to whom I assume the hon. Member refers was appointed on probation as a Porter—not a Sorter—in February, 1927. During his period of probation the state of his health was such that he could not be accepted as an established officer. In ordinary course, his services would then have been dispensed with; but as he was an ex-service man, endeavours were made to find him a permanent post in an un-established capacity, and meanwhile, to avoid a break in his service he was given temporary employment which happened to be available at the appropriate rate of wages. It is not the general practice of the Post Office to grade the pay of officers on any particular class in accordance with their physical disability, and the latter part of the hon. Member's question does not therefore arise.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Has this man a disability pension?

Viscount WOLMER: I must ask for notice of that Question.

CANADIAN MAGAZINE POST.

Mr. HURD: 26.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the penetration of the British West Indies by foreign newspapers and traders and the benefit that would accrue from a freer circulation of British catalogues, newspapers, and literature, he will take steps to extend the Canadian magazine post to the British West Indies, British Guiana, and British Honduras.

Viscount WOLMER: The possibility of extending the Canadian Magazine post to other part of the Empire has been considered from time to time; but as the special Canadian arrangement already entails a considerable financial loss which extension would increase, I am afraid my right hon. Friend cannot at the present time comply with my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. HURD: 30.
asked the Postmaster-General to what extent advantage is being taken of the special Canadian magazine postal rates by submitting figures for last year and for the year before the introduction of this rate; and what is the
loss, if any, to the revenue of the Post Office through the institution of the special rate.

Viscount WOLMER: Nearly 6,000,000 lbs. of magazines are carried annually by the Canadian Magazine Post; which was established in 1907. No comparable figures are available for the preceding year. The annual loss, i.e., the difference between cost and revenue entailed by the special rate of postage is estimated at about £38,000.

ORKNEY AND SHETLAND (WIRELESS SERVICES).

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 32.
asked the Postmaster-General the yearly cost of maintaining the wireless communication between Sanday and North Ronaldshay, in Orkney, and the estimated cost of installing a similar service between Lerwick and the Skerries, in Shetland.

Viscount WOLMER: The exact cost of maintaining the wireless installation between North Rondaldshay and Sanday cannot be stated without further inquiry, but is probably in the neighbourhood of £120 per annum. The apparatus is of an old type, and a similar system would not now be installed elsewhere. I will have inquiry made as to the cost of establishing a wireless service between Lerwick and the Skerries by means of modern apparatus, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

INLAND TELEGRAPH SERVICE.

Mr. E. BROWN (for Mr. HORE-BELISHA): 31.
asked the Postmaster-General how many telegraph offices have been closed down during the past 12 months; whether the number of established messengers Employed in the delivery of telegrams has been cut down; and, if so, whether he is satisfied that the concession of free deliveries within the three-mile radius given by Act of Parliament is effectively guaranteed?

Major Sir WILLIAM COPE (Controller of the Household): I have been asked to reply. During the year ended the 31st of May, 1928, telegraph collection and delivery work was withdrawn from 29 offices. There has been a reduction in the established messenger force during the same period, but this is due to other causes, as all the offices now in question are small country sub-offices, at which
regular messengers are not usually Employed. The withdrawal of telegraph delivery facilities in certain cases has no doubt placed some addresses outside the radius of free delivery. Free delivery within a radius of three miles which is not a statutory requirement does not carry with it an obligation to maintain a delivery office within three miles of every address. But telegraph facilities are not withdrawn from an office unless the cost of maintaining them is clearly disproportionate to the usefulness of the office.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURAL RATES.

Mr. EVERARD: 33.
asked the Minister of Health the estimated amount of rates levied in England and Wales on agricultural buildings, excluding farmhouses, for the last three years, respectively?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The amount of rates levied in England and Wales on agricultural buildings, excluding farmhouses, is not shown separately in the rate books nor can it be shown separately until the new valuation lists under the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, have been compiled. In these circumstances a close estimate of the amount cannot be furnished for any year, but such indications as there are point to an amount ranging in recent years from £650,000 to £850,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — REFUSE DESTRUCTION (LOUTH).

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 34.
asked the Minister of Health if he has received a resolution signed by inhabitants of Louth calling attention to the burning refuse pit in the town, which is so situated that odours and smoke are causing danger to health and annoyance to inhabitants; and what reply be has returned?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has received a petition in reference to this matter and is communicating with the town council.

Oral Answers to Questions — VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS (RATING).

Captain CAZALET: 35.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the inconsistencies prevalent to-day throughout the country in regard to the
rating of voluntary hospitals; that in Devon the rating assessment committees have resolved that voluntary hospitals in that county shall be rated at 7s. 6d. per bed, including nurses' beds, while in Wiltshire the rating and assessment committees have adopted the basis of £5 per head additional to nurses' beds; and whether he can give to the House the assurance that such inequalities will be removed under the new Valuation and Eating Act?

Sir K. WOOD: The Central Valuation Committee has reported the existence of considerable diversity of practice in the assessment of voluntary hospitals. My right hon. Friend has circulated the Committee's recommendations on this matter to the local authorities concerned, but he is not empowered to interfere with their discretion in the assessment of any class of hereditament. I may add that the matter is not germane to the Government's proposals for giving relief from rating burdens to agriculture and industry.

Sir COOPER RAWSON: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the effect of the operation of the 1925 Rating and Valuation Act on some hospitals? For instance, in the case of the Middlesex and Westminster Hospitals, the rate is £4 per bed, whereas the new rate in Brighton for the new Sussex Hospital is £23. The rates have been increased 20 or 30 times in amount?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member seems to be answering a question.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the advisability of de-rating hospital beds?

Sir K. WOOD: That matter was discussed.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

ENDERLEY MILLS, NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME.

Mr. JAMES HUDSON: 36.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of workers formerly engaged at the Enderley Mills, Newcastle-under-Lyme, who have since the beginning of this year, when this firm lost the Post Office clothing contracts, become registered as unemployed and still remain on the live register?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I do not know what the facts are in this case, but while I am always ready to supply general information, it would obviously be improper and unfair to publish information which can be identified as applying to a particular firm.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the hon. Member consult with the Postmaster-General on this question and see whether it is possible to break this clothing ring, which apparently has broken the lives of 500 of my constituents?

TRANSFERENCE OF WORKERS.

Mr. W. THORNE: 38.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that 50 men were sent to London from Porth (Rhondda Valley) Employment Exchange to obtain employment as cyclists to sell ice-cream on commission that many of the men were unsuitable and had to return home: and that if the men had refused to come to London their unemployment pay would have been stopped: and if he will discontinue the practice of applying outside before first ascertaining whether local unemployed are available?

Mr. BETTERTON: I think someone has been supplying the hon. Member with inaccurate information. One lad was placed in employment of this description on conditions that were not unsatisfactory, but he came from Port Talbot. I can only trace two Porth cases and these were placed in labouring jobs. According to my information all these are still holding their jobs.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask whether there are no men unemployed in London who are suitable for these labouring jobs, and what object there is in bringing more men from South Wales and elsewhere into the labour market of London?

Mr. BETTERTON: I have no doubt that these men were selected because they were considered more suitable.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask whether any effort was made, out of the tens of thousands of men in London who are on the register, to find men suitable for this work, and whether it is necessary to go down to South Wales instead of filling these jobs with men from the London labouring classes?

Mr. BETTERTON: I cannot answer with regard to this particular case, but I have no doubt, all other things being equal, and men equally available on the spot, that they would have the first chance.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly inquire into these particular cases. We who live in London challenge the assumption that there are no men who can do this work in London.

Mr. BETTERTON: I will willingly make inquiries.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Is it not the ease that men from South Wales, from the Rhondda Valley, have been sent up to London, have not found employment and are not able to get home again; and that a large number of young men have been struck off the register because of their refusal to come?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am not aware of that fact.

Mr. T. KENNEDY: Is this part of the national policy of the Transference Board, of transferring men from the mining districts, which is being recommended by the Ministry of Labour all over the country?

Mr. BETTERTON: I hope the hon. Member will look at the Report of the Transference Board before he draws any such conclusion.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries into the statement I have made, that these young men are brought from South Wales to London, are then left stranded without any work, and are struck off the register?

Mr. BETTERTON: If the hon. and gallant Member will give me particulars of any such cases, I will inquire into them.

ROAD SCHEMES (EX-SERVICE MEN).

Mr. EVERARD: 62.
asked the Minister of Transport whether in all grants allocated from the Road Fund for new construction schemes conditions are imposed that, 75 per cent. of those Employed in such schemes shall be ex-service men?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): This condition was applied to schemes expedited for the
relief of unemployment, some of which are still in progress, but the condition is not now attached to new grants.

Mr. EVERARD: Will the Minister use his influence to see that this 75 per cent. is made part of the present scheme?

Colonel ASHLEY: This was a special decision arrived at with regard to schemes for the relief of unemployment.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALY (FRONTIER TRAFFIC REGULATIONS).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the practical closing of all climbing on the southern slopes of the Alps in Italian territory, near the Swiss and French frontiers, owing to the regulations issued by the Italian Government, he will make friendly representations to the Italian Government asking that the facilities formerly enjoyed by all climbers may be restored?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): No, Sir. The restriction of the movement of foreigners across the Italian frontier is a matter entirely within the competence of the Italian Government, and His Majesty's Government have no ground for representations. In this connection, I would refer to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir M. Conway) on the 25th June. I may add that according to a list communicated to His Majesty's Government in September last, some 30 passes are open on the Swiss-Italian frontier alone. A similar list in respect of the Franco-Italian frontier is awaited.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that only the easier passes, which are of very little interest to climbers, are open, and that the more difficult mountains are practically closed?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

KIUKIANG LOOTING (COMPENSATION).

Mr. LOOKER: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the sum agreed to be paid by the Nationalist Government for damage at Kiukiang has been handed over, and, if so, on what
date; whether any payment has been made to British claimants; and, if not, will he state the reason?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards the first part of his question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him on the 9th of May, 1927. A difficulty arose in connection with the distribution of the funds to British claimants owing to the fact that the total claims somewhat exceeded the amount of the indemnity. Instructions were accordingly sent to His Majesty's Minister that all verified claims should be paid pro rata after a careful scrutiny. In order to prevent further delay Sir M. Lampson directed His Majesty's Consul at Kiukiang to notify all those who had not completed their claims that the funds would be distributed by a fixed date which, he suggested, might be the end of June.

NANGKING OUTRAGES.

Mr. LOOKER: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in what cases the premises of British firms at Nanking have been damaged by Nationalist troops or otherwise; whether any such premises are still in the occupation of troops or officials of the Nanking Government; whether any and, if so, what steps have been taken to secure compensation for any damage done and to obtain the rendition of any premises unlawfully occupied to their British owners; what reply has been made by the Nanking Government to any such representations which have been made; and why the British firms referred to should not be re-established in the premises belonging to them?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that the premises of many, if not all, British firms at Nanking have suffered damage, but I have no detailed list. My latest information shows that, after being evacuated on the 21st of January, they were re-occupied on the 1st of February; I have no information regarding the present position. The other points raised by my hon. Friend are all bound up with the negotiations for the settlement of the outrages of March, 1927, regarding which I would refer him to the replies given to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Mardy Jones) on the 4th of April last, and to the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Day) on the 19th of April.

Mr. LOOKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some firms have been turned out of their premises at Nanking for 18 months and are suffering serious loss of business in consequence; and can he hold out any hope of the Nanking Government recognsing their obligations in this matter at an early date?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot undertake to make promises in the name of the Nanking Government or to secure their fulfilment.

BRITISH CONCESSION, CHINGKIANG.

Mr. LOOKER: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any and, if so, what British firms trading at Chingkiang are deprived of the use of their premises there by reason of such premises being occupied by Chinese troops or officials; whether any justification has been made or compensation offered in respect of such occupation; whether any steps have been taken to protest to the Nanking Government against such occupation; if so, what replies to such protests have been received; and whether the Government proposes to take any and, if so, what further steps to secure the right of the British firms concerned to reside and trade in the premises belonging to them.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: As I informed my hon. Friend on the 2nd of April last, British property at Chinkiang has been occupied by Chinese troops, but I have no information as to the names of the firms involved. Protests have been made against this illegality, and assurances regarding the protection of British property have been given by the Nanking Minister for Foreign Affairs, but, in view of the impotence of the civil authorities vis-à-vis the military, little value attaches to such assurances. His Majesty's Government look to the Nanking administration to fulfil their obligations in this matter, and are carefully observing their conduct with regard to it.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDENHALL HOSPITAL, MUSSEL-BURGH.

Mr. SHINWELL: 43.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that, owing to the isolated position of Edenhall hospital, there is much dissatisfaction among ex-service men who are on out
treatment there owing to the long walk to the hospital; and whether he can arrange to provide transport facilities from Musselburgh to enable the men to reach the hospital without difficulty.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut. Colonel Stanley): The hon Member would appear to have been misinformed as to the facts. There is no out-patient department at this hospital.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is it not a fact that many persons who seek to visit the patients in this institution find difficulty in obtaining the necessary transport facilities?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: We have not had any report to that effect. The institution is situated only a few minutes' walk from a place where there is a frequent tram and omnibus service.

Oral Answers to Questions — SMALLHOLDINGS, SCOTLAND.

Mr. MACLEAN: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the Scottish Office cannot give the number of applications for small holdings in Harris and Lewis in 1912, the number met, and the number still awaiting settlement, when Appendix No. 3 to the Sixteenth Report of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland contains even more statistical information relating to Skye, North Uist, and Barra?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): The number of applications received in a particular year from the districts referred to can be readily obtained, but to trace their subsequent history over a period of years would involve a considerable expenditure of time and labour which I do not think would be justifiable. As regards the reference to Appendix 3 of the Board's Report, this contains statistical information which is readily available relating to properties acquired by the Board for land settlement purposes

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not quite an easy matter for the Secretary of State to find out whether an individual who has registered an application for a smallholding in 1912, say, has subsequently received that holding? That is the purport of the question. Cannot that be done quite easily? It does not require much statistical search.

Sir J. GILMOUR: The fact is that it can be readily ascertained when the application is made, but, if a considerable period of years elapses, to find out what happened to him in those subsequent years entails a great deal of labour which I do not think is justified by any result.

Mr. MACLEAN: Are we to understand that in some way or other the records are placed in an inaccessible position in the Scottish Office, that the officials there cannot obtain access to them? When a name is once registered by an applicant for a smallholding is it the case that that name disappears and cannot be found during a subsequent period?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. The records of applications are kept by the Board of Agriculture. It would be a great labour and expense to trace what happened to every individual who may have applied in one year or another. He may haw, gone out of the town or may have disappeared in the interval.

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: We have dealt with only 44 questions and there are only 10 minutes remaining to finish all questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS (BRITISH WIVES).

Miss WILKINSON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether any further steps have been taken towards giving to British women married to aliens the right to retain their own nationality; and whether he can promise this reform within the lifetime of the present Parliament?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I have been asked to reply. We must await the Report of the Committee of Experts mentioned by the Imperial Conference of 1926, and when the recommendations of that Committee are available they will have to be considered by a further Conference. I fear, therefore, that the answer to the last paragraph of the question must be in the negative.

Miss WILKINSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea as to when this Committee of experts will report, and is he not aware that a great deal of hardship
is caused to many English women by the present state of affairs, while foreign women, some of whom are quite undesirable, can obtain British nationality by merely going through the formality of marriage?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: A Committee of the Imperial Conference dealt with the matter, and we have a Committee now sitting. Owing to the differences of opinion it will be a long time before we can get a complete report.

Miss WILKINSON: As it is likely to be a long time before the matter is dealt with, can the right hon. Gentleman's Department be more elastic in its review of the cases of British women of undoubted respectability who are stranded abroad and wish to return to their own country and nationality?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I very frequently do relax. If the hon. Member has any case in mind and will let me know about it, I shall personally go into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — RATING AND VALUATION (APPORTIONMENT) BILL.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, under Standing Order 46, paragraph (2), he is prepared to arrange for Section 9 of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Bill to be committed to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills, particularly in view of the fact that it deals solely and specifically with Scotland?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): No, Sir. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the House on Thursday last allocated time for the remaining stages of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Bill, and further, the Government have given half a day extra for the discussion of the Clause which deals with Scotland.

Mr. BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this procedure was followed in connection with the National Health Insurance Bill of 1911, and that, although we get extra time, the gravity of the issues raised in Clause 9 is such that yet more time ought to be given? Does not this provide suitable machinery?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that I cannot go beyond what was decided by the House the other day.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRSHIP "ITALIA" (ASSISTANCE).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 47.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is still in communication with the Italian authorities with a view to the Royal Air Force assisting in the rescue of the crew of the air ship "Italia"; whether any request or suggestions for assistance have been made by the Italian authorities; and what form of help has been offered by the Royal Air Force and with what result?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): My right hon. Friend, as he informed the hon. and gallant Member on the 28th June, invited the Italian authorities some time since if now or at a later stage there should appear to be anything which the Air Force could usefully do to assist in the rescue operations to call upon us without hesitation. The Italian Government replied that, if occasion arose, they would most certainly avail themselves of our offer, since when no further communication has come from them. My right hon. Friend received, however, on Saturday, a telegraphic request from Norwegian sources from the Committee for the relief of Amundsen asking whether we could lend two small float seaplanes which could be refitted with ski in Norway. He has replied that, if any of our available types can be utilised by the Norwegian authorities, after this modification, the Royal Air Force will, of course, be happy to furnish these aircraft forthwith. Detailed arrangements are now under discussion.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does that mean that these small float seaplanes are on the way. That was Saturday and this is Monday. Have you sent them?

Sir P. SASSOON: There really has been no delay.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: But have they been sent?

Sir P. SASSOON: We have to wait to know exactly what type they want.

Oral Answers to Questions — TEACHERS' TRAINING COLLEGE, WOOD GREEN.

Mr. HARRIS: 48.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Home and Colonial Training College, Wood Green, is to be closed down at quite short notice; whether he can explain the reason for this action; whether he is aware that many of the staff who have put in long service at the institution will find it most difficult to get equally good positions; and if he proposes to take any steps to protect their interests?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): The trustees of this college have decided to close the college at the end of the current term on account of the unsatisfactory condition of the premises. As regards the last two parts of the question, the appointment and dismissal of the members of the staff of a training college rest with the college authorities, and I am afraid that I cannot undertake to intervene.

Mr. HARRIS: Will the Noble Lord not call the attention of the various college authorities to the position of these men and women and their good records, so that they will not be thrown out on the labour market as unemployed?

Lord E. PERCY: It would not do very much good to draw attention to the obvious fact that if a college is closed the people concerned will no longer be able to serve in that college.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOOLWICH COMMON.

Mr. W. THORNE: 49.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he has received any complaints from local residents regarding the encroachment by the military authorities on parts of Woolwich Common, which have been used for many years by the public; and the number of acres owned by the War Department, and the number of acres which are considered part of the rights of the public?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health has just forwarded to me a complaint from one of his constituents. As
regards the second part of the question, the whole of Woolwich Common is War Department property. Although there are no public rights over it, the War Department policy is to allow the public to use it freely so far as military requirements permit.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONDENSED MILK IMPORTS (SERVICE CANTEENS).

Mr. HURD: 50.
asked the Secretary of State for War what are the countries of origin of the 46 per cent. of foreign unsweetened condensed milk which is sold in Army, Navy, and Air Force canteens, and what part of the other 54 per cent. is manufactured in Great Britain?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: These are details of the trading administration of the Navy, Army, and Air Force institutes which do not come under the direct cognisance of the War Office, but I am informed that of the unsweetened condensed milk sold in this country, that of foreign origin comes from Holland, and the remainder is stated to be manufactured in England.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOST DOGS (POLICE ACTION)

Sir ROBERT GOWER: 51.
asked the Home Secretary whether his inspectors' Reports show that adequate accommodation exists at all police stations for the reception of lost and strayed dogs; and whether he will state what methods are adopted by the police for the humane destruction of lost or strayed dogs which are not claimed by their owners?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have no information as to the arrangements outside London, but in the Metropolitan Police District the accommodation is adequate, and it is a condition required of the contractors that the dogs handed over to them which are not claimed should be destroyed in such manner as to cause as little pain as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHIEF CONSTABLE, ST. HELENS (INQUIRY).

Sir R. GOWER: 52.
asked the Home Secretary if the whole or any part of the expenses incurred by the watch committee of the borough of St Helens in connection with the inquiry ordered by
him into their relations with the chief constable of St. Helens are payable by the ratepayers of St. Helens, or if the whole or any part of the cost of that inquiry will be charged to public funds?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The cost of the inquiry, including the expenses of the watch committee, will be chargeable to the local police fund and will be treated, for purposes of the usual Exchequer subventions, as part of the cost of administration of the force.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRAPPING OF ANIMALS.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 53.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that considerable suffering is caused to dogs, rabbits and other animals through being caught in the steel-toothed traps now in use; and whether he will consider the matter of introducing legislation to prevent the use of any traps for the trapping of animals which are not free from objections relating to cruelty?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The question of prohibiting the use of these traps has been considered on several occasions, but the National Farmers' Union, who were consulted on the subject in 1924, expressed the opinion that they were the only available method of preventing the serious economic loss which would be caused to agriculture by the multiplication of vermin. The existing law in regard to the protection of animals gives sufficient powers in cases where unnecessary suffering is being caused, and in the circumstances I am afraid the Government cannot see its way to propose legislation.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Farmers' Union that there is no effective means available for destroying rabbits, except the use of these traps?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I know enough about the subject to be aware of the fact that rabbits and rats are exceedingly difficult to exterminate, and that they both consume great quantities of food and are detrimental to agriculture.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the rabbit itself is a food?

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE INVESTIGATIONS.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 54.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has received from a solicitor, acting on behalf of Bernard Arthur Beagle, of 29, Brook Mews, Lancaster Gate, London, a copy of a sworn declaration containing allegations regarding the methods adopted by certain specified officers of police in endeavouring to procure from him incriminatory declarations as to a crime committed on 28th July, 1926; whether he has seen the comments of the learned Magistrate at Marylebone Police Court on the 26th instant, in which the Magistrate announced his intention of assisting this man from the poor box to obtain legal facilities for redress against the police informant; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I received the document in question on Friday last, and at once instructed the Commissioner to institute inquiries. These inquiries are still proceeding, but if the hon. Member will repeat his question on Wednesday or Thursday I shall hope then to be in a position to give him a reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEBTOR PRISONERS.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 55.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can give the total number of imprisonments for debt during the 12 months ended 31st December, 1927, or to the most recent date for which) statistics are available; and whether he is able to differentiate between those imprisoned for failure to provide maintenance for wives and families, for failure to pay rates and taxes, for failure by parents to pay Police Court fines on account of children failing in school attendance, and for other causes, respectively?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As the answer is rather long, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Debtor Prisoners, 1927.

The number of debtor prisoners received in prison during the year ended
31st December, 1927, was 12,132, made up as follows:


Committed by—



High Court
21


County Courts
2,875


Courts of Summary Jurisdiction
9,227


Other Courts
9


Total
12,132


The following were committed by Courts of Summary Jurisdiction:



For non-payment of maintenance of wife, family, or relatives under Orders obtained by Poor Law Authorities
129


For non-payment of wife's maintenance under Married Women (Maintenance) Acts, etc.
3,998


For non-payment of children's maintenance under the Children Act, 1908, etc
111


Total, wives, families, etc.
4,238


For non-payment—



of bastardy arrears
2,761


of rates
1,926


of Income Tax
193


under Orders made under the Employers and Workmen Act, 1875
11


of other debts
98


Total
9,227

Details of the cases from Courts other than Courts of Summary Jurisdiction are not available.

Police Court fines on parents on account of children failing in school attendance are imposed as penalties on conviction. In the latest year for which figures are available, namely, 1926, 97 persons were received in prison in default of payment of fine for various offences tabulated against the general heading "Education Acts, Offences against."

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT PRINTING.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 61.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on what basis the Stationery Office charges Government Departments for printing work; and whether Departments, if they can have the work done at a lower price by other printing firms,
are allowed to place orders with such firms?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): The Stationery Office does not ordinarily charge Government Departments for printing work, which is an allied service borne on the Stationery Office Vote. The second portion of the question does not therefore arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — HENDON AIR DISPLAY (ACCIDENT).

Mr. W. THORNE (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has received any report of an accident which occurred at the Hendon Flying Display on Saturday evening last caused by two lorries colliding; if he is aware that one lorry was the property of the Royal Air Force, and the other of Messrs. Jay's; that the accident caused the death of Miss Ada Hawes and injured three other people who were removed to Hendon Cottage Hospital; and what action he intends to take in the matter?

Sir P. SASSOON: Whilst a full official report has not yet been received by the Air Ministry, I regret to say that an accident of the character described did most unfortunately occur on Saturday. I understand that the coroner's inquest is to take place on Wednesday. My right hon. Friend is instituting immediate inquiries, and I will communicate the result to the hon. Member as early as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — METROPOLITAN POLICE (CHIEF COMMISSIONER).

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD (by Private Notice): asked the Home Secretary whether it is correct that Sir William Horwood will shortly relinquish his appointment as Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police; and whether he can make any statement on the subject?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir. Brigadier-General Sir William Horwood intimated to me in February of this year his intention of retiring from the appointment of Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in the late autumn on attaining the age of 60. I have since been taking steps to find a successor.
I am glad to be able to inform the House that His Majesty the King has been pleased to approve, on my recommendation, of the appointment of General The Viscount Byng of Vimy to succeed Sir William Horwood.

Mr. MONTAGUE: May we know, if an important question of policy such as is involved in this matter cannot be debated in this House; and should the House not be told why the military rather than the police are called upon to fill a post of this kind, before the appointment is made?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Of course, the question of my action in recommending anybody, can always be debated in this House—

Mr. HARDIE: After the appointment.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am responsible for the appointment, and my conduct can be called in question by putting the Vote for my Department down for discussion.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Is it the settled policy of the Government to go to the Army rather than to the police force, in filling such an appointment as this?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The settled policy of the Government is now, and always has been, to get the very best men they can get.

Mr. THURTLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why, in view of the fact that the conduct of Sir William Horwood has been impugned in connection with the recent inquiry—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. THURTLE: —why has it been found necessary to make this announcement before the Report of the Commission has been made public?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There has been, as I understand it, no point raised as to the conduct of Sir William Horwood, but as to the conduct of two individual members of the police force. That inquiry had nothing whatever to do with Sir William Horwood's announcement to myself, in February, that he wished to retire, and I had been for some time, long before the Savidge Inquiry began, considering who to appoint in his place.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will Lord Byng be entitled to receive another pension at the end of his period of service?

Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the time to raise that point.

Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman has made the announcement about this appointment, and surely I am entitled to ask about the terms on which this Noble Lord is going to carry out the appointment. He has already received a big public grant.

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. SHINWELL: What is the age of Lord Byng?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Sixty-five.

Mr. HARDIE: Before this appointment was made, were the Cabinet consulted, and why was the matter not brought to the House of Commons, which ought to be the basis of all these appointments?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This is not an appointment for which the Cabinet are responsible. It is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to give advice to His Majesty the King. Upon that advice, His Majesty approved this appointment. I may be allowed to say, and it will interest the House to know, that General Lord Byng hesitated a very great deal before accepting this position, and it is not the acceptance of an office merely but the acceptance of a very stern call to duty.

Mr. LANSBURY: Do we understand the right hon. Gentleman correctly, that Sir William Horwood has retired because he has reached the age limit of 60, and, if so, why has the Tight hon. Gentleman appointed someone of 65?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Sir William Horwood was appointed on an appointment which lasted until the age of 60. It was open to him to apply to me to extend that period, and in the early part of this year he intimated to me that he did not wish it to be extended.

Mr. LANSBURY: Are we to understand that the proper age of retirement from this position is 60 years, and that a man who wants to serve longer must get an extension from the Home Secretary? I want to know why the right hon. Gentleman appoints a man five years older?
Is there not a man in the Police Force capable of doing the job?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am perfectly certain that, knowing the Police Force as I do, this appointment will be welcomed; and there is no man that I know who, from his career and talents, is so well adapted to the post as Lord Byng.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to the average age of the Front Opposition Bench?

Mr. GARDNER: Is the ability of the senior officers of the Metropolitan Police so poor that they cannot find a successor to the gentleman who is retiring, without going outside the Force?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member is making suggestions in regard to the senior officers of the police. All I can say in reply, is that, knowing these senior officers of the police, and the responsibility being on my shoulders, I am of opinion that Lord Byng will make the best Chief Commissioner that I could possibly get.

Captain GARRO-JONES: May I ask whether Sir Archibald Bodkin will follow the example of Sir William Horwood?

Mr. MACLEAN: Since the Home Secretary has made an announcement of this character to-day, will he now state what are the terms of service which were offered to Lord Byng, and which he accepted, and which will operate during his period of service?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The only condition that he made was that he should retire the moment that he felt his faculties were unequal to the post, and at any time with 24 hours' notice if I thought that he was unsuitable.

Mr. MACLEAN: But that does not give us the full terms. It is not a question of the limits of service, but the remuneration that is going to be paid for this particular office. I am asking whether there is any pension attached to it at any time that Lord Byng wants to retire?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The question of pension has been asked, and Mr. Speaker rules that it is not germane.

Mr. MACLEAN: When a statement is made in this House as to a new appoint
ment that practically comes under the scope of the Civil Service, it is in order, surely, for any Member to inquire as to the terms of remuneration and the period of service; that comes within the scope, I think, of the terms of any reply that may be made. I am asking what are the terms of remuneration that were offered to Lord Byng prior to his acceptance, including pension.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The House will be amused to hear—

Mr. MACLEAN: I am not at all amused.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: —that no terms were offered to him, and that Lord Byng made no stipulation of any kind as to the amount of his salary and pension.

Mr. MONTAGUE: May I ask, for my guidance, which is the most appropriate way in which I can raise this important question?

Mr. SPEAKER: The question could most appropriately be raised on a Supply Vote on the salary of the Home Secretary.

Later—

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
The selection of Viscount Byng of Vimy as Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.

Mr. SPEAKER: That would not come within the definition of the Standing Order as to the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I beg to give notice that I intend to raise the question of the appointment of Lord Byng at the earliest possible moment on the Adjournment.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Stuart James Bevan, esquire, K.C., for the Borough of Holborn.

RACECOURSE BETTING BILL.

Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 164.]

Orders of the Day — RATING AND VALUATION (APPORTIONMENT) BILL.

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee (Progress 19th June).

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 2.—(Definition of agricultural hereditaments.)

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, after the word "used," to insert the words, "to the satisfaction of the Forestry Commissioners."
The Amendment has for its object to vary slightly the definition of agricultural land. I am not wedded to the form of words in which the Amendment stands, but I have no doubt that the Minister of Health realises the purpose that lies behind the Amendment, and the point that it is desired to raise. The object is to ensure that land which is used for a plantation or woods, which now comes within the definition of agricultural land, shall not be allowed to include land which may be used for a plantation which is very improperly or wastefully attended. There is a great deal of land in England which is used as a cover for sporting purposes, but which is of no use from an agricultural point of view; and, if it were referred for an examination by the Forestry Commissioners, they would say that the best thing that could be done, from the point of view of afforestation, would be to root it up and re-plant it. Such land is miserable scrub stuff which should not have any advantage from derating. The reason this Amendment has been put down is that we may have a clear ruling that it is not the intention of the Ministry that such woods should be included in the definition of agricultural land, and should get the advantages of de-rating which are to be given to agricultural land.

4.0 p.m.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): I cannot possibly, in Committee on this Bill, accept an Amendment of this kind. The question as to whether plantations are efficiently carried on for the purposes of forestry is one which, no
doubt in its place, might properly be gone into, but to make the basis of an assessment dependent upon an investigation by the Forestry Commissioners is to bring in a great element of uncertainty which will be impracticable in working. I think the hon. Member will see that exactly the same considerations might be urged in favour of every possible form of rating relief, whether it applies to forestry or industrial hereditaments, freight-transport hereditaments or any other. I may say that if the Forestry Commissioners, whose interest it is to see that plantations are carried on, had thought that this was a useful way of getting some power to enable them to intervene, I think they would certainly have made representations to me, but they have not done so. I hope, therefore, the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.

Mr. HARRIS: I am rather surprised at the reply to this really practical Amendment. I hope it does not signify that the Minister is going to refuse every possible offer of help. The only justification for rating relief in regard to land is in order to stimulate production and promote good farming. The reason for applying it to woods is to encourage the development of land for the production of good wood for timber purposes for the use of the community, and not to increase the area of land which is allowed to grow scrub and timber of no utility, or for sporting purposes which is entirely against the whole purpose of this Bill. In the interests of the ratepayers, the Minister must see that it is reasonable and right that something on the lines of my hon. Friend's Amendment should be accepted. The right hon. Gentleman has frequently pointed out that the money for this purpose is very limited, that there is not enough to go round, and here we are coming forward to help the right hon. Gentleman. Here is a suggestion that land which does not come within the real definition of this Clause should not get the advantage of the assistance given by the Bill. I think it is rather surprising that when a practical suggestion of this kind is made, it should be so lightly turned down. I do press upon the Minister to consult the hon. Member for Monmouth (Sir L. Forestier-Walker), who is an expert on this subject, and I do not doubt that if
he did so, the hon. Member and his fellow Commissioners would support a suggestion of this kind, which is really to promote good forestry. It is most unfortunate that when we come to practical proposals, the Minister dismisses them airily, thus showing that he is not anxious to get assistance, but only to get the Bill through.

Mr. RILEY: The whole claim for the proposal for de-rating rests entirely upon the assistance of productivity and the stimulation of industry. Therefore, I want to urge upon the Minister that really there is a very sound reason why this Amendment should be accepted. As the Bill stands, de-rating is going to be applied to a class of plantation of which the owner will have no reason whatever to make any use at all. Under the Bill as it now stands, he gets relief for his plantation irrespective of any kind of cultivation, and, as has been said by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, it is a direct encouragement to owners of this class of forest land to keep the land out of use for productive timber and to use it for game and other purposes, I do, therefore, urge upon the Minister that if there is any force in the argument that the purpose of this Bill is to stimulate industry, here is an instance where he might accept an Amendment.

Mr. MORRIS: The Minister, by his answer to-day, has admitted that the Amendment is, at any rate, in principle, a valid Amendment. The only objection he has raised to it is that it will introduce into the principle of rating a reference to the Forestry Commission. While we are making these de-rating proposals, the only consistent principle is that the de-rating should be in favour of those industries which are productive. All that this Amendment seeks to do is to carry out the principle enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is to make sure that those plantations which are de-rated are plantations such as would be accepted by the Forestry Commission. Otherwise, you are going to de-rate land which might be used merely for pleasure purposes, and which cannot in any sense be termed for the purpose of cultivation. How can it be an objection that you have to get a certificate first and foremost from the Forestry Commission?
Surely that is a legitimate way to safeguard the principle which the Minister himself has enunciated. I hope, therefore, he will see his way to accept the Amendment.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should regret if the Minister of Health could not, at any rate, give a promise to consider whether an Amendment of this kind could not be introduced at a later stage. I can assure him that the Amendment is not introduced from any point of view of criticism, but is a perfectly practical proposal. Let me point out exactly what has happened. I say at once that I welcome the fact that productive woodlands are de-rated. I think, at any rate, that is one of the features of the Bill which I can heartily support, for the obvious reason that this form of industry takes a very considerable number of years before there is any return at all, and, therefore, it is exceedingly difficult to induce landowners to sink their capital in planting, when they know they will get no return of any sort or kind for at least 20 years, and that it will take 40 years at the very least before they can get a return upon their capital. Therefore, any proposals put forward by the Government which would have the effect of encouraging the replanting of this country and the extension or planting is in itself a very good thing. I had the privilege, when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer, of making an allowance in the Budget for Death Duties in respect of properties of this kind, and, so far from regretting it, I am very proud of the fact that that was done.
Therefore, first of all, let the Government get it out of their mind that this Amendment is moved from a destructive point of view. What happened in the last War Not far from 1,000,000 acres of timber—I think in all about 800,000 acres—were cut. There has been no real effort to re-plant. We had a Royal Commission, which recommended that at least 3,000,000, more acres should foe planted. So that we have gone back by 1,000,000 acres, whereas we should have gone forward by 3,000,000. It has been very difficult, as the hon. Member for Monmouth (Sir L. Forestier-Walker) will tell the Government, to induce landowners to upend money upon this proposition. Let us see what the effect of this
would be? There is in this country a good deal of woodland which is perfectly worthless—in: fact, it ought to be discouraged. This is the position, according to the Report of the Forestry Commission. There is in Great Britain woodland of 2,958,000 acres—roughly, 3,000,000. Of this acreage, less than one-half is planted on economic principles and with potential production of timber. The Government are going to apply exactly the same principle to the woodland which is productive, which is commercially valuable, which is really useful to this country, as they do to woodland which is mere scrub and perfectly worthless. The Government do not discriminate between the 1,400,000 acres which are commercially valuable, and over which the owners have taken a good deal of trouble to make valuable, and the 1,500,000 acres which are of no use at all. I should have thought it was worth their while to utilise this opportunity for the purpose of discriminating between the two, giving relief to the woodlands which have commercial value, by way of encouraging landowners to plant more, while, at the same time, not de-rating woodland which is really a nuisance. Sometimes it may cover quite good land. There is hardly any other country which tolerates scrub of that kind. This is really a problem to which I have paid some attention.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: It has no rateable value now.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Sometimes it has, and sometimes it ought to have, because it is covering ground which is really valuable ground, and I do not think it ought to do so. There ought to be far more planting done, and also far more cutting. What is really wanted in this country is scientific planting, and the right hon. Gentleman has an opportunity, in so far as any proposal of de-rating can encourage industry, of discriminating between the two on this occasion. I can quite understand some of the practical difficulties. They are not really very great. The Forestry Commission have, on the whole, a fairly good grip of the matter, and it would be very well, I think, if they had an opportunity of going more closely into it. There is no difficulty in certifying the whole of this woodland,
and declaring which of the forests or woods are useful for commercial and productive purposes, and which are not. It would not take very long for them to do it, and it would serve a subsidiary purpose, which is in itself a valuable one. We have, to a certain extent, a kind of register or schedule of this land in the country, but not a complete one, and I think it would be very valuable if the Minister of Health would see his way to entrust the Forestry Commissioners with powers to enable them to schedule these woodlands, and then de-rate those commercially valuable, making it quite clear that the others are not going to get any subsidy in any shape or form.
I agree that it is not a very considerable subsidy—it is rather a question of subsidy—but if you distinguish between the two, you encourage the right kind of planting and discourage the wrong kind. I hope the Minister of Health will not imagine that this Amendment is moved from a destructive point of view or a critical one. There are Amendments which, I agree, are a criticism upon the principle of the Bill. This is a practical addition to the Bill, which would give it real value, and, if the Minister cannot accept the Amendment in its present form, I hope he will promise consideration of this suggestion between now and the Report stage. If, after consulting the Forestry Commissioners, he thinks there are practical difficulties which would be insuperable, he can state that to the House of Commons, but I do beg him to reconsider his decision.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I need hardly assure my right hon. Friend that any practical proposal made during the Committee stage will be gladly welcomed by the Minister of Health, and the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) need not think that because this Amendment is resisted we are not willing to consider any reasonable and practical proposals made with the object of improving the Bill. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) quite realised what implications would follow from accepting this Amendment. I must say that when I read it I asked myself why woodlands alone should be treated in this way, and
why the same principle should not be applied to cottage gardens, market gardens, nursery ground and orchards.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman permit me to reply?

Sir K. WOOD: I wish to finish my argument first, and then I will sit down. My point is that if this principle is to be adopted it must not be confined to woodlands. You must apply the same test to other lands, and relief must be granted upon the same conditions as in the case of woodlands. That is my argument. If the hon. and gallant Member has anything to say, I will give way.

Sir R. HAMILTON: As the right hon. Gentleman asked me a question my answer is this, that in this Amendment we are dealing with woodlands and woodlands only—one thing at a time.

Sir K. WOOD: What I was pointing out was, if we are to adopt this principle in the case of woodlands, why have not Amendments been put down in respect of all the other classes of land set forth in the Clause? If you are going to admit the principle that before relief is given in the case of woodlands the Forestry Commissioners have to be satisfied in the manner indicated in the Amendment, then equally you have to apply that principle to all the other hereditaments enumerated in the Clause. My first answer, therefore, is that if we were to make this a condition in the case of woodlands it would be impossible to resist it in the case of other hereditaments, not only in this Clause, but in other parts of the Bill. You might equally say that no rate relief should be given until some body of officials or some independent committee have come to the conclusion in the case of industrial hereditaments that they also have attained to a certain standard of efficiency. The right hon. Gentleman rather assents to that view, as one would expect. One cannot dismiss this proposal lightly by saying, "Go to the Forestry Commissioners and see what they have to say, and if everything is all right come back and accept the Amendment." Directly we accept this proposal we bring a new principle into the Bill, which certainly the Government would not consider either desirable or necessary. The right hon. Gentleman
the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, when he, in his time as Prime Minister, gave relief to farmers to the extent of 75 per cent. of their rates, did not lay down any conditions of this kind. He did not say that before relief of 75 per cent. of the rates could be granted—[An HON. MEMBER: "It was 50 per cent. then!"]—well, 50 per cent., he did not say that the cultivation of their land must come up to a certain standard, and—

Mr. SNOWDEN: He did in his Corn Production Bill.

Sir K. WOOD: —for practical purposes it would have been quite impossible to make that condition. It would have meant instituting Commissions up and down the country to scrutinise every hereditament which was to receive rate relief and decide whether or not it came up to a certain standard. One has only to state the proposal to see that it would really destroy the Bill. In this Clause the Government are continuing the practice which has always appertained in connection with rate relief, and there has been no suggestion from the Forestry Commissioners or any body of that kind that this Amendment is necessary. It is on those grounds, and not with any desire to resist any Amendments because they come from any particular quarter of the House, that we are opposing this Amendment. If it were accepted we should have to vary the principle right the way through.

Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: The arguments to which we have just listened are very ill-founded. There is no relationship between what we are asking for in the Amendment and the other matters to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. All we are asking is that the Forestry Commissioners shall decide which of the plantations in the country are usefil from the point of view of producing timber and which are not. In the other Amendments we want to insert certain agricultural enclosures like hop gardens into the Schedule, but we do not ask for a separate authority to say what is a hop garden or what is an osier bed. The real difficulty is that in this country there are many woodlands in respect of which it is difficult for anybody but an expert to say whether they are for the benefit of national timber
production or not. The Forestry Commissioners have been in existence for a great many years and undoubtedly they have a very thorough knowledge of what timber there is in the country. Certainly the large forests in the country are well known here. To me this seems a reasonable and sensible Amendment, and I do not understand why it is not immediately accepted by the Government. There is no better authority than the Forestry Commissioners to decide on this question. I hope the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will see his way' on Report stage to bring forward some proposal of this nature to help in the proper division of the money which has been provided by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I would like to say a word on the question of discrimination to which the Parliamentary Secretary has referred. The Bill itself engages in discrimination, for there is a distinction between this land and land used for sporting purposes or racecourses or other purposes of recreation. Therefore, his argument that we are introducing new discriminations falls to the ground. And even if that were not the case, surely there can be no comparison drawn between an ordinary cottage garden or an ordinary holding, where the turnover is regular either inside a year or some other definite period, and woodlands where you have to wait a very long time for any return upon the capital expended. The principle of this Amendment seems to be a thoroughly reasonable and sound one, and in line with the Clause, and I very much regret that the Government have turned it down.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The proposal made in this Amendment is surely not so undesirable as the Under-Secretary has suggested. If it becomes known that the Government are automatically giving relief to woodlands which are used mainly, and perhaps entirely, for game preserving, I think they will find that the moral force behind their proposals will be undermined. Everyone who knows anything about either game preserving or woodlands knows it is difficult where to draw the line, although the Forestry
Commissioners never have any difficulty in doing so. They have most excellent surveyors.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the right hon. Gentleman looks further into the Bill he will see that ground which is occupied exclusively or mainly for the purpose of game is excluded.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am quite well aware of that. The trouble in this country is that there is a very large area of woodlands which are not well kept. The Forestry Commissioners know that. Why are they not well kept? One reason is because the cost of replanting is very high, and landlords as a whole cannot afford to do it. Those who can afford to plant and to keep their woodlands in good condition are few and far between. Further, there are a very large number of woodlands used not for the purpose of producing timber for profit but for the purpose of maintaining good cover. It is very difficult to draw the line in the case of forests. In the instances given in the Bill there is no trouble at all but when you come to these half-way woodlands, where you do not know whether they are one or the other, the best person to decide are those connected with the Forestry Commission. For a long time it has been our policy to give more and more power to the Forestry Commission. We have given them large sums of money, and their policy would be assisted if it were known that a handicap was placed upon those who do not put their woods to the best use. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman should object to this Amendment. There can be no objection to it on its merits, and in so far as he represented that it would raise difficulties in the case of other landed property of one kind or another, I doubt whether he could justify that; but on the merits of the proposal itself it appears to me that the right hon. Gentleman is really manufacturing difficulties. He ought to be ready to rely on the expert officials of the Forestry Commission, who are men without any political prejudices and are not likely to take an extreme line, their sole interest being to have the land now planted put to the best use. If the Government say that land which is not put to the best use is to get exactly the same relief as land which is, then, of course, we join issue with them.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 105; Noes, 193.

Division No. 221.]
AYES.
[4.29 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Groves, T.
Potts, John S.


Ammon, Charles George
Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Riley, Ben


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Barnes, A.
Hardie, George D.
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Barr, J.
Harris, Percy A.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Batey, Joseph
Mayday, Arthur
Sakiatvala, Shapurji


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Broad, F. A.
Hirst, G. H.
Scrymgeour, E.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scurr, John


Buchanan, G.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Cape, Thomas
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shinwell, E.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cove, W. G.
Kelly, W. T.
Snell, Harry


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kennedy, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Dalton, Hugh
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stephen, Campbell


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, George
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Day, Harry
Lawrence, Susan
Strauss, E. A.


Dennison, R.
Lee, F.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Duncan, C.
Lindley, F. W.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Dunnico, H.
Livingstone, A. M.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lowth, T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Tinker, John Joseph


England, Colonel A.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Tomlinson, R. P.


Forrest, W.
MacLaren, Andrew
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gardner, J. P.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joseph


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wiggins, William Martin


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
March, S.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gillett, George M.
Montague, Frederick
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gosling, Harry
Morris, R. H.
Windsor, Walter


Graham, Rt. Hon, Wm. (Edin., Cant.)
Mosley, Oswald
Wright, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colon
Naylor, T. E.



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Oliver, George Harold
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Paling, W.
Sir Robert Hutchison and Sir Robert Hamilton.


NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Foster, Sir Henry S.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Fraser, Captain Ian


Albery, Irving James
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A (Birm., W.)
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Gates, Percy


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Chapman, Sir S.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Apsley, Lord
Chilcott, Sir Warden
Goff, Sir Park


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Christie, J. A.
Gower, Sir Robert


Astor, Viscountess
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Grace, John


Atholl, Duchess of
Clarry, Reginald George
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Balniel, Lord
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Grotrian, H. Brent


Barclay-Harvey C. M.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hacking, Douglas H.


Bethel, A.
Cooper, A. Duff
Halt, Capt. W. D. A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Betterton, Henry B.
Couper, J. B.
Hamilton, Sir George


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hanbury, C.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Harrison, G. J. C.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Brass, Captain W.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Briggs, J. Harold
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Briscoe, Richard George
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whltah'n)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.M.)
Hurd, Percy A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hurst, Gerald B.


Buchan, John
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Everard, W. Lindsay
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Falls, Sir Bertram G.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Lamb, J. Q.


Campbell, E. T.
Fermoy, Lord
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Fielden, E. B.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Ford, Sir P. J.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Loder, J. de V.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Long, Major Eric
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Looker, Herbert William
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Herman
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Lumley, L. R.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ramsden, E.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Macmillan, Captain H.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Warrender, Sir Victor


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Malone, Major P. B.
Salmon, Major I.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Margesson, Captain D.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Wells, S. R.


Meller, R. J.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Meyer, Sir Frank
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Savery, S. S.
Wilton, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Skelton, A. N.
Withers, John James


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Nelson, Sir Frank
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.



Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Sprat, Sir Alexander
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Major Sir George Hennessy and Major Sir William Cope.


Oakley, T.
Stanley Lord (Fylde)



Penny, Frederick George
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Sir R. HAMILTON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, to leave out the word "saleable." If this Amendment be carried, it will be necessary to follow it up by another Amendment standing in my name—in page 2, line 27, after the word "underwood" to insert the words "primarily for agricultural purposes or for sale."
It will be seen at once that the alteration is not a very large one. You might have timber grown for agricultural purposes which would not have any value for the market, and it might be timber grown purely for farm purposes. This Amendment provides that the Clause shall not be restricted to saleable underwood, and the effect of the addition of the words which I suggest will be to enlarge the meaning of the Clause and make it perfectly simple. I do not know whether the Minister of Health will be ready to accept my Amendment, but I think it is one which will fall in with his intention in regard to the word "saleable," although our two Amendments slightly enlarge the meaning of the Clause.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope the hon. Member will not think that I am taking up a doggedly hostile attitude when I say that I do not think this Amendment is an improvement. As a matter of fact, what the hon. Member proposes to do is to change the wording by leaving out the word "saleable" in order to insert after the word "underwood" the words
"primarily for agricultural purposes or for sale." Surely, the hon. Member is assuming that the word "saleable" means only for the purpose of sale, but that is not the meaning of the word "saleable." It only means that the farmer could sell the woodland if he wanted to do so, and the question of price really does not come in at all. Therefore, the Amendment is unnecessary, because the word "saleable" really covers everything which the hon. Member has in mind. Under these circumstances, I hope that it will not be necessary to press this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, after the word "underwood" to insert the words "or osiers."
If the right hon. Gentleman can inform me that my point is covered already, and that osiers, which are the raw material used in basket making, are covered, then I shall be quite satisfied.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that the wording of the Clause does include osiers. There are two methods of growing, one would be by means of a plantation and the other would be by underwood.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, to leave out the words "exceeding one-quarter of an acre." This proposal seems to me to be one of those discriminations against the workers which we might expect from the present Government. No doubt the Minister of Health will tell us that if one-eighth of an acre had been inserted instead of one-quarter the Opposition would have used the same arguments against it. In view of the fact that the Government are proposing to relieve the whole of agricultural land except the very small proportion used by workers from any sort of rates, and the fact that the workers will be called upon to pay the tax if the de-rating proposals are carried into effect, I think we are quite justified in asking that this limitation should be deleted.
The right hon. Gentleman may say that the administrative difficulties would be insurmountable in dealing with cases of less than one-quarter of an acre. I suggest that the number of administrative difficulties which will arise when the Bating and Valuation (Apportionment) Bill, together with the proposals which were announced on Friday last week, become Acts of Parliament will be well-nigh insurmountable. If the Government can surmount difficulties which affect certain sections of the community, they should be able to surmount those difficulties which affect a large number of people who have a small garden and who cultivate and make the fullest use of the land.
The right hon. Gentleman lays down the limitation that the cottage garden must exceed one-quarter of an acre. I hope he will tell us why he fixes that limitation. In the Housing Acts of 1919, 1923 and 1924, there has been placed a limit to the number of houses which can be built on one acre by local authorities. If the councils had erected the minimum number permitted by the right hon. Gentleman there would not have been a single case of a tenant of council houses erected since 1919 who would have benefited to the extent of one penny piece under this limitation of a quarter of an acre. The Minister of Health knows full well that the great multitude of working people who live in houses which have been erected on the scale of from 30 to 40 houses per acre cannot hope to benefit under the terms of this Bill.
It seems to me that the limitation of a quarter of an acre has been designed ostensibly in order to deprive of any benefit tens of thousands of workpeople who happen to have a cottage garden which is less than one-quarter of an acre. In any case it seems to me that as very few workers will have a garden that exceeds one-quarter of an acre, the right hon. Gentleman would do well to consider the advisability of giving what small benefits there may be to those who have a garden, although it fails to exceed one-quarter of an acre if that garden is well cultivated, and if it is producing a maximum amount of vegetables and other produce. It is an arbitrary distinction which we do not think should have been made.
Then it is proposed to de-rate land that is used for sporting purposes, or, in many cases, for purposes of recreation. The right hon. Gentleman drew the attention of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) to a reservation included in the Bill relating to land kept or preserved mainly or exclusively for sport or recreation, but he did not tell the hon. Member who was going to determine where land is either mainly or wholly used for sporting or for other purposes. He suggested that to ask the Forestry Commissioners to move up and down the country for the purpose of determining whether a plantation was useful or not would be absurd, but he uses words in the Bill which imply that all over the country someone has to say whether each section of woodland is used either mainly or wholly for purposes of sport.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will see that there is a later Amendment on the Paper dealing with that matter.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am sorry if I transgressed, but I was attempting to draw an illustration with regard to the administrative difficulties that might occur if this limitation were removed altogether. We think that, if agricultural land, whether arable, meadow, pasture, or timber land, is going to be derated, the workman who has a garden of three or four hundred square yards, which he cultivates to the maximum extent, ought not to be deprived of any advantages that there may be under this Bill, and it is because of our feeling that this
limitation is due to the natural, inherent Tory prejudice against the workers, and because of our desire for equity in this Bill, that we move the deletion of these words.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid that the hon. Member has been misled by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), who led him to think, on the Second Beading of the Bill, that this provision limiting the cottage gardens which were to receive relief under this Bill to those exceeding a quarter of an acre was the invention of Tory ingenuity. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I would refer him to his own speech. I am now quoting the hon. Member for the Don "Valley (Mr. T. Williams), who thought that it was the invention of the Tory Government. I pointed out at the time—I am sorry that the hon. Member paid so little attention to what I then said—that this definition is not the invention of the present Government, but is a definition which has been actually on the Statute Book for no less than 32 years. It will be found in the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, and it has been continued since then by successive Governments, to whatever party they have belonged, including the party of the hon. Member, who is so anxious to obtain equity for the working man and so shocked at the prejudice shown by the Tory party in this discrimination against the working man. It is an astonishing thing that, if that be the feeling with regard to this definition, it was not altered when the Labour party were in office—

Mr. RILEY: Their time was so short.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is an excuse which has been pretty well worn thin, and which is always brought forward on every possible occasion to excuse the shortcomings of the Labour party when they were in office. Let us consider for one moment what is the practical effect of the Bill as it stands, and what the effect of the Amendment would be. The present practice is, of course, to treat a cottage and the garden about that cottage as one hereditament. The effect of saying that the garden belonging to the cottage should be treated as agricultural land, and should be de-rated like
other agricultural land, would be that there would have to be a separation between the valuation of the garden and the valuation of the cottage.

Mr. MacLAREN: Why not?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There are in this country some millions of cottages with gardens attached, and it would be necessary, therefore, to go to a vast amount of work and expense in measuring up and valuing the various gardens belonging to those cottages from one end of the country to the other—and for what purpose? What would be the value of a cottage garden detached from the cottage? I imagine it would not be more than something like 5s. a year. Does the hon. Member really think that the benefit that a working man is going to get from the de-rating of a property which is only worth 5s. a year would justify the enormous amount of work and the vast army of officials that would be required to go right through the country in order to separate these hereditaments one from another?

Mr. RILEY: Will all allotments, however small, be de-rated under the Bill?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Allotments are separate hereditaments now. The point about the cottage garden is that it is not a separate hereditament. It is combined with the cottage, and, in order to de-rate it, it would have to be separated from the cottage. That is what makes it necessary to draw the line somewhere, and I put it to the hon. Member that he has not considered the extraordinarily small—indeed, infinitesimal—benefit which would accrue to any working man through a provision of this kind as compared with the enormous amount of work and expense to the country which would be involved in carrying the Amendment into effect.

Mr. RILEY: There is, no doubt, a good deal of point in the practical difficulty to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, but, on the other hand, it is felt that the limit of a quarter of an acre will lead to some extraordinary anomalies. We have the case, for instance, of the large number of smallholders who are not town dwellers with cottage gardens, but genuine agriculturists, who live in cottages with only small gardens attached to them. Such a
man may have a holding outside the village, but his only accommodation may be a cottage, with its garden, in the village. That garden, although it may not be so large as a quarter of an acre, may be sufficient to enable him to use it, say, for stabling, or for pig-styes, or for keeping a calf or a cow. As the Bill now stands, the genuine smallholder, in cases of that kind, will be deprived of the benefit of de-rating, not only as regards the land, but as regards the buildings that he erects upon it, because, if I read the Clause aright, there will only be de-rating of agricultural buildings if the land is recognised by the Act as agricultural land. If such a garden as I have referred to is less than a quarter of an acre in area, it will not be recognised as agricultural land. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that, whatever the practical difficulties may be, there will be numerous anomalies of that kind which he ought to try to remove.

Mr. HARRIS: I appreciate that difficulties might arise if the Minister were to say that all cottage gardens should be exempt, and I also realise that the reason for fixing the limit at a quarter of an acre is that that is the existing unit which is already recognised by law; but a limit of a quarter of an acre in this particular case will give rise to a feeling of differentiation in favour of, say, the foreman of the farm, or the more prosperous cottage holder, as against the small man who has only a little garden.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Why is it that there is not that feeling already, seeing that these holdings at present are subject to a reduction of 75 per cent.?

Mr. HARRIS: I think that that argument is rather a weak one. We are trying always to improve legislation; that is why the House of Commons is in existence. Here the Government are going one step further, and are giving complete exemption from rates, and, at any rate in some villages near towns, where the rates are high, it is bound to give rise to some feeling where a large man—[Interruption]. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that that is extremely funny. If he were in a village and had a large garden which was exempted from rates, while the labourer with a small garden of an eighth of an acre—

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If I had a garden sufficiently large to be exempted, it would not be a cottage garden.

Mr. HARRIS: I was not suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman individually is an agricultural labourer; he is rather more profitably and usefully Employed. I am talking about the individual, and I say to the right hon. Gentleman that, if he cannot accept this Amendment, he might, on Report, reduce the limit to, say, one-eighth of an acre. I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture is not here. One of our great problems at present is to keep the working man on the land. There is a constant drift from the rural districts into the cities. The reason constantly given for that is the fewness of the opportunities that the agricultural labourer has to become independent and make a living, and one of the things to which, above everything else, importance is attached, is the provision of small holdings, or, failing that, of cottage gardens. Apparently the Government are now going out of their way to differentiate in favour of the large holder as against the small one. I think that the Minister might very well consider whether he cannot arrive at some figure which would be more generous to the agricultural labourer, and I would suggest to him one-eighth of an acre as a practical proposal.

Mr. MARCH: I am rather surprised that the Minister should make so light of this matter when we ask him to make a change. One would think that no changes at all had been made since 1924. It seems to me that, if there had not been a Labour Government in 1924, Ministers would, in many cases, have no argument to bring forward, because they always seem to think that everything ought to have been done in 1924 when the Labour Government were in office. At that time, however, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, at any rate, was seeing to it that they did not get much chance as far as he was concerned; he certainly did his share in regard to that. I cannot quite understand the Minister's argument as to there being millions of these places. I would remind him that there are millions of houses which have no gardens at all, and there is no difficulty in arriving at the assessment on the house or cottage in such cases. Cannot the house or cottage
be assessed as apart from the land? Certainly it can, when the local authority go round to make up their assessments, and there is no difficulty about it.
5.0 p.m.
This is where the anomaly occurs. Those people who have no gardens attached to their houses may have allotments. They may grow all the agricultural produce that they possibly can, and their allotments are de-rated. On the other hand, other people may have a little garden, and, if they have only an eighth of an acre, that has to be added on to the assessment of their house. That is an anomaly, and we desire that it should be cleared away. Moreover, it is quite possible that the person who lives in a house with no garden at all, but who has an allotment, is better paid than the man who has only a little piece of garden. You are setting up an anomaly, and you are practically punishing one class of people who have to get into houses where there are small gardens, because the houses with large gardens have too high rents. Everybody knows that when a house is to let with a good garden attached to it, a little bit higher rent is charged. The Government are punishing the many to help the few. I think that instead of doing this, the Government should try to help the many.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The time at the disposal of the Committee to consider Clauses 2 and 3 is very limited and, therefore, I do not want to occupy very much of that time. But I would like to make two points on this. The first is that the Minister seems to forget that the vast majority of gardens attached to cottages, even in the country, are under one-quarter of an acre. There are not

so very many cottages that have gardens of a quarter of an acre. They are the exception; most of them have one-eighth of an acre. Those will not be included in the terms of the exemption. That means that the vast majority of cottages in the country will not have the benefit of the exemption.

The second point I want to make is this. The Minister is really under-estimating the value which will be placed upon these gardens. He puts it at 5s., and he says, "Is it really worth while, for the sake of a five-shilling assessment, to make all this fuss and to have the expense of a new valuation?" He is quite wrong. If he takes two cottages in a village, one with no garden at all and the other with one-eighth of an acre garden, he will see that the difference between those two cottages is by no means 5s. a year in the rent. It is considerably more than that. If he offers an agricultural labourer two cottages of the same size, but one with one-eighth of an acre garden, he will find that the labourer will have to pay certainly 30s. or £2 a year more for the house with the garden than for the other. Therefore, it is absurd to value this merely at 5s. The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well, because he has had some experience of looking into the matter, how difficult it is to get cottages in the country. I should have thought that he would have gone rather out of his way to extend the principle of exemption to every cottage. It would be a pretty substantial exemption if he brought it down even to one-eighth of an acre.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 205; Noes, 114.

Division No. 222.]
AYES.
[5.4 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Boothby, R. J. G.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bourne, Captain Robert croft
Campbell, E. T.


Albery, Irving James
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Brass, Captain W.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.


Apsley, Lord
Briggs, J. Harold
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Alton)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dever)
Briscoe, Richard George
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)


Astor, Viscountess
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Atholl, Duchess of
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I
Chapman, Sir S.


Balniel, Lord
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Buchan, John
Chilcott, Sir Warden


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Christie, J. A.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Bullock, Captain M.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.


Bethel, A.
Burton, Colonel H, W.
Clarry, Reginald George


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Ramsden, E.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hennessy, Major Sir G. H. J.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Cooper, A. Duff
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Ropner, Major L.


Cope, Major Sir William
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Ruggies-Brise, Lieut. Colonel E. A.


Couper, J. B.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Salmon, Major I.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn., N.)
Hurd, Percy A.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Savery, S. S.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel. (Renfrew, W.)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Curzon, Captain Viscount
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Skelton, A. N.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kinloch Cooke, Sir Clement
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lister, Cunlifle, Rt. Hon, Sir Philip
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Loder, J. de V.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Looker, Herbert William
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Drewe, C.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Ht. Hon. G. F.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lumley, L. R.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Thorn, Lt.-Cot. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Malone, Major P. B.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Fermoy, Lord
Margesson, Captain D.
Waddington, R.


Fielden, E. B.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Meller, R. J.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Foster, Sir Harry s.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Gates, Percy
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wavland, Sir William A.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wells, S. R.


Gower, Sir Robert
Nelson, Sir Frank
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple.


Grace, John
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsl'ld.)
Windsor, Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Grotrian, H. Brent
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nuttall, Ellis
Withers, John James


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Oakley, T.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Hacking, Douglas H.
Penny, Frederick George
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Hall, Capt. W. D. A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hamilton, Sir George
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Hammersley, S. S.
Perring, Sir William George



Hanbury, C.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Major the Marquess of Titchfield and Sir Victor Warrender.


Harland, A.
Pilditch, Sir Philip



Hartington, Marquess of
Pownall, Sir Assheton



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelty)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Ammon, Charles George
England, Colonel A.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Forrest, W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Gardner, J. P.
Kelly, W. T.


Barr, J.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Kennedy, T.


Batey, Joseph
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Lansbury, George


Bondfield, Margaret
Gillett, George M.
Lawrence, Susan


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gosling, Harry
Lea, F.


Broad, F. A.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lindley, F, W.


Bromfield, William
Greenall, T.
Livingstone, A, M.


Bromley, J.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lowth, T.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)


Buchanan, G.
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Cape, Thomas
Groves, T.
March, S.


Charleton, H. C.
Grundy, T. W.
Montague, Frederick


Cluse, W. S.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mosley, Oswald


Cove, W. G.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Naylor, T. E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hardie, George D.
Oliver, George Harold


Dalton, Hugh
Harris, Percy A.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hayday, Arthur
Pethick-Lawrence F. W.


Dennison, R.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Potts, John S.


Duncan, C.
Hirst, G. H.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Dunnico, H.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Riley, Ben


Edge, Sir William
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)




Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Tinker, John Joseph


Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Tomlinson, R. P.


Sakiatvala, Shapurji
Snell, Harry
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Scrymgeour, E.
Stephen, Campbell
Wiggins, William Martin


Scurr, John
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Strauss, E. A.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Sutton, J. E.
Windsor, Walter


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Wright, W.


Shinwell, E.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)



Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Thurtle, Ernest
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Paling.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. HARRIS:

In page 2, line 28, after the word "gardens," to insert the words, "hop gardens, watercress beds, and osier beds."

Mr. HARRIS: If I can get an assurance from the Minister that the present words of the Clause cover hop gardens, watercress beds and osier beds, I do not want to press my Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: I ought to point out to the hon. Gentleman that the question of osier beds cannot be raised on this Amendment.

Mr. HARRIS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, after the word "gardens," to insert the words, "hop gardens and watercress beds."
As I have already stated, if I can get an assurance from the Minister that this point is covered, I shall not press my Amendment; but I am rather curious to know about the matter. I understand that osier beds are already covered, and I want to know if that exemption extends to hop gardens and watercress beds. The growing of hops is a very important industry. It requires a great deal of capital and it gives much employment, and I do think that it might be well if these words were added to the Clause. I should also like to know whether watercress beds are covered by the Clause. The growing of watercress is a very important industry, especially beside the River Thames. I could show the Minister there watercress beds that bring in a very large amount of revenue. If the Minister does not know that, I would like him to consider the point, because even Ministers can be educated. He may not know of all the ramifications of watercress beds, and that the watercress industry affords opportunity of very profitable investment. It gives a considerable amount of employment, and it brings in a considerable amount of revenue to the lucky
owner. We want no differentiation against watercress beds as against other forms of agriculture.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Before the Minister replies, may I ask him if he can give us any definition of what market gardens are? In my view, hop gardens come within the term "agriculture." I think, undoubtedly, that the growing of hops is an agricultural proceeding, but I do not think that the growing of watercress is really an agricultural operation, although it might be. Therefore, I would like to have some definition of the term "market garden." There is one other matter that I should like to have included in this definition, and that is the growing of rhubarb.

The CHAIRMAN: I think that the remarks of the hon. and learned Baronet are getting a little too wide.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I am sorry if I am getting too wide in my remarks. I am asking for information as to what should be included in the term "market garden," and I noticed that a smile went over the faces of several Members when I mentioned rhubarb. Rut rhubarb growing is a very large industry. Rhubarb is grown in certain parts of the country, and it is sent to markets all over the country, especially to markets in industrial districts.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Is the question of growing rhubarb in Order.

The CHAIRMAN: It is a borderland case. The question is whether the term "market gardens" includes hop gardens and watercress beds, and one might ask what the term does include and whether it includes rhubarb. I do not think the hon. and learned Member would be in order in pressing the point very far.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I do not propose to do so. My point is that the growing of rhubarb is an industry of considerable importance and it is important to know
whether it is included in the term "market gardens." I want a definition of the term "market gardens."

Sir K. WOOD: I am glad to note the interest of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) and of the Liberal panty in the question of hop gardens. I shall be able to satisfy the hon. Member, so that he may go away without any feeling of anxiety. I am advised that "hop gardens" are in-eluded in the words "agricultural land means any land used as arable meadow or pasture land," which is included in the definition. In regard to watercress beds, I am advised that they are covered by the words "market gardens," which is also included in the definition. With regard to land on which rhubarb is grown, I understand that that is included. Agricultural land already receives 75 per cent. and it will continue to receive not only that amount under our proposals, but total exemption. The relief which will be given will, we hope, improve the cultivation of hop gardens and other kinds of produce. I hope that my answer will have satisfied hon. Members.

Amendment negatived.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move in page 2, line 32, after the word "occupied," to insert the words "wholly or mainly for purposes of amenity."
I move this Amendment because the Agricultural Rates Act of 1896 exempted parks from its operations, but it did not put down a definition of what was meant by a park. A great many parks which are enclosed are used entirely as agricultural land and not as deer forests or for purposes of amenity. The whole purpose of the Amendment is to try to get some definition of a park, so that where a park is used for agricultural purposes it shall not be rated, but where it is used for amenity purposes or as a deer park it shall bear the full rates and get no relief. I understand that in most parts of the country the assessment authorities raise no difficulty where the park is used for agricultural land, and it gets relief, but there are certain committees who argue that where a park is enclosed it is a park and not entitled to relief. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider this question between now and the Report stage.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In considering the effect of this Bill we must bear in mind that we are not proposing to de-rate agricultural land for the first time. All that we are doing here is to increase the 75 per cent. relief now enjoyed to 100 per cent. I understand my hon. and gallant Friend to say that for the most part there is no difficulty in differentiating between land which is used for the purposes of a park and land which is used for agricultural purposes, and that where it is so used the land, even if it be in the close proximity of the house, does get the 75 per cent. relief. In such a case it will get 100 per cent. instead of 75 per cent. If the hon. and gallant Member thinks that it is necessary further to clarify the position, I would point out that I do not think his words are likely to go very far in that direction, because he says that the test is to be whether the land is used wholly or mainly for purposes of amenity. That seems to me to put new causes of doubt and uncertainty into the definition. I suggest that as the Central Valuation Committee is in operation, even if complete uniformity is not now being obtained we may look forward to obtaining it at no very distant time, but, as I understand the hon. and gallant Member, in the great majority of cases there is no doubt even now on the matter.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the position is at the moment with regard to the granting of the 75 per cent. relief in rates? Where you have a fairly large park wherein sheep and cattle are constantly grazing and at the same time deer can be seen at almost any time during the day, is that interpreted to be land within the agricultural meaning and entitled to be de-rated, or is it given the amenity interpretation because of the presence of deer and, therefore, is not de-rated?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: You cannot lay down a hard and fast rule. You have to consider the circumstances in each case. It would be impossible, I imagine, to keep the grass down in a park unless you did have it grazed from time to time. Therefore, the fact that there are sheep or cattle grazing in a park would not necessarily mean that that land was to be considered as agricultural land
rather than as a park. I take it that the local authority would take into account the common-sense use of the land as to whether the land was used as agricultural land, or used mainly for the purposes of amenity, and that the animals were merely there in order to keep the grass down to reasonable proportions.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply mean that the assessment committee are the final determining factor?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. HARRIS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 32, after the second word "a," to insert the word "private."
It may be considered that the insertion of this word is not necessary, but I want it to be made quite clear that only those parks which are really open spaces will get the advantage of the exemption, and that those that are confined to private use and attached to a private house will not get the exemption. I have in mind a very valuable gift which was made by the late Lord Iveagh of his house and park in Hampstead. The freehold of the land is not at present offered to the county council but only the leasehold, for a term of years, but I believe that ultimately the land is to be vested in the public authority. It would be a great pity if a great gift like this, which is an example to landowners all over the country, should not get the advantage of this particular Clause. I suggest that the words should be made clear and that a park which is available to the public for public purposes, obviously, should not be subject to rates. If the right hon. Gentleman can satisfy me that if the public have access to a park the limitation would not be applied, I will not press the Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is well aware of what is known as the Brockwell case, under which land which is dedicated to the public is not subject to rates. In the particular case which he has mentioned, where the land is ultimately to be vested in the public but is not so vested now, the Brockwell case would not apply. I think the hon. Member will see that if his Amendment
were inserted, it would mean, or it might mean, that any owner who chose to admit the public to his park one day a month would have the benefit of de-rating, even though to all intents and purposes it was a private park. I am sure that that is not what the hon. Member means, but that would be the result of his Amendment. We ought not in a Bill of this kind where we are merely increasing the relief from 75 per cent. to 100 per cent., to make changes in the general law.

Mr. HARRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult his advisers on the point, and if he thinks it necessary to insert the word "private," do so on the Report stage?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will do so.

Lord APSLEY: I hope my right hon. Friend will give attention to this matter, otherwise a certain amount of grievance may arise. I might quote the case of a private park in which the public are allowed to go every day, except for one day in the year. The public are allowed all over the park. If a park of this description is not made subject to the relief, it would be to the advantage of the owner to enclose the whole of the park, turn it into agricultural land, get crops from it and turn cattle on to it and exclude the public from it, after they have enjoyed a very important privilege. Will the right hon. Gentleman go into the whole of this question and see whether parks which are held open for the public every day of the year with the exception of one day cannot be made subject to a certain amount of relief?

Amendment negatived.

Sir R. HAMILTON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, after the word "racecourse," to insert the words
or that part of the net annual value of agricultural land attributable to sporting rights or facilities.
The reason for this Amendment is in order to get a declaration to make it quite clear that sporting rights which are separable in the assessment from the value of the land are not to have the benefit of de-rating. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can settle the point at once and, if so, I will not use any arguments in regard to it, because it is self-evident that in a scheme of de-rating of agriculture, in order to encourage
agricultural production, we should not include the sporting rights.

Sir K. WOOD: The definition in the Bill provides that the expression "agricultural land" shall not include
land kept or preserved mainly or exclusively for the purposes of sport or recreation, or land used as a racecourse.
There is statutory provision in the Rating Act, 1874, that,

(1) Where sporting rights are severed and let they should be separately assessed and
(2) In other cases they should be assessed together with the land.
The provisions in the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, required the value of agricultural land to be stated separately from that of all other hereditaments. The position as far as sporting rights are concerned is covered in the Statute and is defined also in the Clause. There may be some varying practices on the part of assessment committees, but that cannot be dealt with in a Bill of this kind and is more a matter for a legal decision. In the Bill which my right hon. Friend introduced last Session we endeavoured to pass a Clause which allowed difficult matters of law to be speedily settled by the Courts, but that Clause was defeated—I think the hon. and learned Member for Leeds, South-East (Sir H. Slesser) was the great antagonist—although a good many people desired it. Undoubtedly, it would be desirable to get the matter cleared up from the legal point of view. I have no doubt that it may be possible even under the existing law. It would be more expensive. Perhaps the other House would accept the proposal made in our other Bill. However, there it is. We have to accept the fact, and this question will have to be cleared up as far as these matters are concerned. This proposal, as my right hon. Friend explained, simply extends the relief of 75 per cent. to certain parks. It is not, of course, the intention that this Bill should clear up the law of rating. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman proposes to press this matter. I have only briefly indicated the position, as far as I know it, in regard to the question which he has put.

Mr. HARRIS: We have listened to a most remarkable speech. The right hon. Gentleman has attacked the action of another place. As a matter of fact, I support the action of another place. In
this instance they proved the protectors of the public interest. Much as I admire the legal profession, and especially the distinguished representative on the Front Bench, I do not think it is the business of the House of Commons to give employment to them. Here is an attempt by my hon. and learned Friend, who has had great legal experience and has great legal knowledge, to put something into an Act of Parliament in a practical form, so that everybody should know, especially the assessment committees, who have a very difficult and complex task to perform, exactly what is the intention of the House of Commons. I say that the Minister's speech is a strong and a very unanswerable case in favour of this Amendment. I hope that at least we shall find the Minister sweetly reasonable. After all, we have only listened to the Parliamentary Secretary, who has not the authority to make concessions. We hope that the Minister, who does know how difficult the tasks of assessment committees are in, interpreting the intentions of Parliament, will see that it will be wise, if not to insert these actual words, at any rate, to insert some similar words, so that the intention of the House of Commons shall be known.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: We always admire so much the wit and the logic of the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary that we are surprised to find him making a speech, the conclusion of which is completely at variance with the arguments he used. He told us that there is a doubt about the law, and that it will be a capital plan for it to be cleared up in the Courts. Why should we subject our fellow-citizens to the expense of employing lawyers to clear up this matter in the Courts when by properly wording the Bill we can make the matter clear in the House of Commons? Surely, it is our duty in discussing this Bill to make the law clear and to avoid extensive and costly litigation. I am a stranger to these legal matters, but when there is a difficult and complex matter, I am struck with the superiority of the Scottish law in many cases. Here, for example, in Scotland the case is perfectly clear. You enter in the valuation roll, not a series of blocks of land, but a series of lets, and if there is a, sporting let, it is entered separately from the agricultural let. The
sporting let is completely unaffected by legislation such as the Agricultural Rates Act. It will be completely unaffected by this Bill, and accordingly only the Agricultural let will get the relief the Minister intends.
Will the right hon. Gentleman say that he will consider this matter between now and the Report stage? Will he see whether, either by approximating the English system to the Scottish system and having separate lets for agricultural and sporting land, or in some other way, he can clear up what the Parliamentary Secretary admits is a difficult and obscure point of law and make certain that the relief is concentrated, as he intends, upon agricultural productive industry?

Mr. E. BROWN: The right hon. Gentleman's speech was a little more subtle than it seemed. It is perfectly true that he met the case of the Amendment, but he did not, as I think the Committee will agree, declare the mind of the Government on the actual proposition which has been made out by the Amendment. What we really wish to know in this Committee before this Bill becomes the law of the land and is interpreted, in common with other rating law, by the Courts is, Do the Government or do they not desire to de-rate sporting rights? That is a thing which is not clear at the moment. The Parliamentary Secretary admits that it is not clear, and surely the Committee are entitled to an answer from the Minister himself whether it is the policy of the Government or not to de-rate these rights. If it is the policy of the Government, we must, of course, strenuously resist it and take a decision on the Amendment.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Surely we are entitled to an answer from the Government on this question? It, really, is very important that we should know whether the Government intends to de-rate sporting rights. The Minister knows perfectly well why all of us on this side of the Committee are strongly in favour of de-rating anything which is productive, particularly the productive use of land, but we are equally opposed-and I think he must be in principle—to exempting from rates and thereby encouraging the unfair use of the land, that is to say,
the use of land for sport as opposed to the use of land for agriculture. The more definitely land is used for sport, the worse it will be used for agriculture, and vice versa. The Government, I feel quite certain, are anxious that this Bill should encourage the most intensive cultivation of the land. They want to exempt agricultural improvements. They want to see that the farmer has every encouragement to use his land for agriculture, producing more food and employing more labour upon the land. So far, we are entirely with them. This Amendment is perfectly clear. It states that there shall be no remission of rating from that part of the value of land which is attributable to its value for sporting purposes.
I would submit, if the Government are anxious with regard to this matter and their real object is to de-rate productive industry and not the non-productive forms of industry, that here you have an exceptionally clear case. I think there is a very good case for de-rating the distributive industries as well as the productive industries, but there can be no possible case for de-rating, and, therefore, encouraging that particular form and use of land which is, obviously, not in the public interest, and does not lead to greater production and does not lead to increased employment upon the land. I would ask the Government, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), whether it is their intention to de-rate the use of land for sporting purposes, or whether it is not? If we can get a straight answer to that question, and if that answer is, as I hope, that they agree with us, and do not want to encourage the use of land for non-productive purposes, then surely the Committee can sit down and think out the best form of words which would secure that object. At the present time we are evading the question in a way which is quite unworthy of the House of Commons. It is not fair to leave it to the Courts to discharge. We must make up our own minds. If our minds are made up on wrong lines, it is better to have it made clear than to have it left in this vague form, which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health thinks is good enough, but which is not good enough for the House of Commons, whatever it may be for the Ministry of Health.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: There seems to have been a great confusion of idea and thought on the part of hon. Members who have spoken. What do they mean by "sporting rights"? As far as sporting rights are let, they are rateable according to the law of our country, and there is nothing whatever in this Bill that I can see to prevent them from being rated in future as they have been hitherto. It is quite true that under the law of our land, where agricultural land or land suitable for sporting is let only for agricultural purposes to a tenant, and the sporting rights of that land are not reserved to the landlord, the land is only rateable for the purpose for which it was let, and that is, agricultural land. There are no sporting rights. The land is presumed to be let for agricultural purposes, and the sporting is not encouraged. If the tenant, on the other hand, having had the land let to him free of all restrictions, chooses to let the sporting rights to somebody else, those sporting rights at once become rateable in the hands of the sporting tenant. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent those sporting rights being rateable. That is the law of the land as it stands. That is the view I take, and I cannot see any necessity for the Amendment proposed or the Amendment of the rating law as it exists.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: If this Amendment is passed, it is rather hard on a particular form of agriculture. At the present moment the owner-occupier occasionally shoots on his land and if the authorities see this Clause in the Bill they will say, "Hello, you have got sporting rights. We will rate you accordingly, and we will rate you high." I hope the Liberal party will press the Amendment, and they will see what a good many agriculturists think of them.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not want in any way to evade giving an answer to hon. Members opposite who ask what is the view of the Government on this question. I thought my right hon. Friend had given a complete answer to any particular point hon. Members opposite had raised by this particular Amendment. Quite frankly, it is not our proposal to change the existing practice under this Bill. We have, as my right hon. Friend said, a diversity in some particular cases, but in the great majority
of cases there is no diversity at all. What, I think, some hon. Members may not be aware of, and no doubt others are, is that there may be a great number of different categories of cases in which sporting lights might or might not arise. There is the owner who has the sporting rights of the land in his own occupation. There is the owner who lets the land and retains the sporting rights himself. There is the owner who lets the sporting eights and retains the land. There is the tenant who takes the land from the owner and sub-lets the sporting rights, but in a number of these different kinds of cases, and in the great majority of these cases, the law is perfectly well defined and perfectly well understood. There are no doubt, certain cases, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) has illustrated a case, that of the owner-occupier. He has a farm let to him as a farm, but there is a certain amount of game on the farm.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The right hon. Gentleman said "an owner-occupier who has a farm let to him." If he is the owner-occupier, it is his own farm.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I was thinking of a somewhat different case. I was thinking of a tenant who has a farm let to him as a farmer. There is a certain amount of game, not very much, and he has a gun and shoots it. When the farm is assessed the sporting rights, if there are any, are not assessed separately. The farm ii assessed as an agricultural proposition, and unless there was a very considerable amount of game, I presume the assessment would not be raised by reason of the fact that there was a certain amount of game that was shot by the tenant. If you are going to pass an Amendment to say that part of the net annual value of agricultural land attributable to sporting rights or facilities is to be taker into account, the rating authorities will not wait until they hear a gun go off, and come round and assess separately the sporting rights. It will be their duty to inquire into every case where there is any value in the sporting rights, and assess them separately. I think that would be going further probably than the Committee would desire. We are trying to encourage the farmer to produce more. We are giving him some assistance by de-rating the land.
We do not want to take away with one hand something of what we are giving him with the other. We do not want to make him subject to a new rate which he has not hitherto contemplated at all. There are other cases in which there is a certain amount of diversity, but in the absence of such a procedure as we hoped to get under Cause 4 of the Eating and Valuation Bill, by which we might perhaps have settled this question already, we must leave it to be decided

in the ordinary way when someone thinks it of sufficient value to take it to the courts and get a decision. That is a course that is enthusiastically supported by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, and I think he would prefer that to a new definition in a Bill which is not really concerned with the point.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 122; Noes, 232.

Division No. 223.]
AYES.
[5.49 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Groves, T.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Eiland)


Ammon, Charles George
Grundy, T. W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Scrymgeour, E.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Scurr, John


Barnes, A.
Hardie, George D.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Barr, J.
Harney, E. A.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Batey, Joseph
Harris, Percy A.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Bondfield, Margaret
Hayday, Arthur
Shinwell, E.


Bowerman, Ht. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Briant, Frank
Hirst, G. H.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Broad, F. A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bromfield, William
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bromley, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Snell, Harry


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cape, Thomas
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Charleton H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cluse, W. S.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Strauss, E. A.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lansbury, George
Sutton, J. E.


Connolly, M.
Lawrence, Susan
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lindley, F. W.
Thorns, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Dalton, Hugh
Livingstone, A. M.
Thurtle, Ernest


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lowth, T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Dennison, R.
Lunn, William
Tomlinson, R. P.


Duncan, C.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dunnico, H.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Edge, Sir William
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wellock, Wilfred


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
March, S.
Wiggins, William Martin


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Montague, Frederick
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


England, Colonel A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Forrest, W.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gardner, J. P.
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gillett, George M.
Paling, W.
Windsor, Walter


Gosling, Harry
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wright, W.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Greenall, T.
Potts, John S.



Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Riley, Ben
Sir Robert Hutchison and Sir Robert Hamilton.


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Ritson, J.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Boothby, R. J. G.
Campbell, E. T.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Albery, Irving James
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Brass, Captain W.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon William Clive
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Briggs, J. Harold
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Apsley, Lord
Briscoe, Richard George
Chapman, Sir S.


Ashley, Lt-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Chilcott, Sir Warden


Astor, Viscountess
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Christie, J. A.


Atholl, Duchess of
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.


Atkinson, C.
Buchan, John
Clarry, Reginald George


Balniel, Lord
Buckingham, Sir H.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Bullock, Captain M.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Burman, J. B.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish.
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Cohen, Major J. Brunei


Bethel, A.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Cooper, A. Duff
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Ramsden, E.


Cope, Major Sir William
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Couper, J. B.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whltch'n)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hurd, Percy A
Ropner, Major L.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hutchison, Sir G. A. Clark
Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Rye, F, G.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Salmon, Major I.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jephcott, A. R.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Davies, Dr. Vernon
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir clement
Savery, S. S.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Knox, Sir Alfred
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Drewe, C.
Lamb, J. Q.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W.)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Skelton, A. N.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Loder, J. de V.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Looker, Herbert William
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lumley, L. R.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Fermoy, Lord
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Ford, Sir P. J.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Sueter, Hear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Malt land, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Thorn, Lt.-Col. I. G. (Dumbarton)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Malone, Major P. B.
Tryon, Rt. Hon, George Clement


Gates, Percy
Margesson, Captain D.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Glyn, Major H. G. C.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Gower, Sir Robert
Meller, R. J.
Waddington, R.


Grace, John
Meyer, Sir Frank
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Grotrian, H. Brent
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Moors, Sir Newton J.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wayland, Sir William A.


Hacking, Douglas H.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wells, S. R.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymole


Hall, Capt. W. D. A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hamilton, Sir George
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Hammersley, S. S.
Nuttall, Ellis
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hanbury, C.
Oakley, T.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Penny, Frederick George
Wolmer Viscount


Harland, A.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Hartington, Marquess of
Perring, Sir William George
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)



Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Pilditch, Sir Philip
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Major the Marquess of Titchfield and Captain Wallace.


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Pownall, Sir Assheton



Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Preston, William

Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 39, to leave out from the word "dwelling," to the end of the paragraph, and to insert instead thereof the words:
at a rent or, where the owner is the occupier, which would otherwise be let at a rent not exceeding, in the case of a house situate in the administrative county of London, forty pounds, and in the case of a house situate elsewhere twenty-six pounds.
6.0 p.m.
This Amendment would have the effect of slightly enlarging the class of person to whom the exemption refers, but that is not its primary object. My primary object is to introduce a small technical
improvement into our rating system. The Minister said, in his breezy way, that if anyone did not understand it, he could take it to the Courts, but I am sure he did not mean that. I am very seriously concerned with the difficulty of the rating officers. The words "persons of the labouring class" are taken from the Act of 1896, but since then Parliament has endeavoured to define this sort of class of small property, and there are a great number of such definitions, and the expressions "persons of the working class," and "persons of the labouring class" as they appear in different Acts of Parliament would have
different meanings. There are other Acts which go on the altogether different plan of affixing the description, not to the class of tenant but to the property. Such Acts are the Rent Restriction Act, and the Housing Act, 1925, from which I have taken a Clause to serve as my Amendment. The Minister's definition is not altogether a happy one, even if you proceed on the plan of designating the persons. What does "a person of the labouring class" mean? The definition of "a person of the working class" is as vague, as untechnical and as unsatisfactory a definition as any that could be supplied. It does not matter very much, because the matters that turn on what is a person of the working class are settled by the Minister and the local authorities. This new definition will be settled by the Minister and the local authorities, and the revenue authorities. Persons of the working class include all ordinary persons who would be called labourers, persons for whom we are voting money to provide houses.

Whereupon, the GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a message, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned.

Mr. SPEAKER announced the Royal Assent to—

1. Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1928.
2. Cotton Industry Act, 1928.
3. Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act, 1928.
4. Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1928.
5. National Health Insurance Act, 1928.
6. Bankers (Northern Ireland) Act, 1928.
7. Post Office (Sites) Act, 1928
8. Richmond Parish Charity Lands Scheme Confirmation Act, 1928.
9. London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Order Confirmation Act, 1928.
1036
10. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Act, 1928.
11. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 4) Act, 1928.
12. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Peterborough Extension) Act, 1928
13. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Torquay Extension) Act, 1928.
14. Aberdeen Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1928.
15. West Hartlepool (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation Act, 1928.
16. Land Drainage (Ouse) Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1928.
17. Newquay and District Water Act, 1928.
18. South Metropolitan Gas Act, 1928.
19. Dartmouth Corporation Act, 1928.
20. Hastings Corporation Act, 1928.
21. Leeds and Liverpool Canal Act, 1928.
22. Oxford Corporation (Water, etc.) Act, 1928.
23. Lancashire Quarter Sessions Act, 1928.
24. Bermondsey Borough Council (St. Olave's Garden) Act, 1928.
25. Mid Kent Water Act, 1928.
26. Great Western Railway (Swansea North Dock Abandonment) Act, 1928.
27. Weaver Navigation Act, 1928.
28. Warwick Corporation Act, 1928.
29. Falmouth Water Act, 1928.
30. Ystradfellte Water Act, 1928.
31. Scottish Insurance Companies (Superannuation Fund) Order, 1914 (Amendment) Act, 1928.
32. London County Council (Tramway Subway and Improvements) Act, 1928.
33. Wey Valley Water Act, 1928.
34. Bethlem Hospital Act, 1928.
35. York Town and Blackwater Gas and Electricity Act, 1928.
36. Zoological Society of London Act, 1928.
37 London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Act, 1928.
38. Plympton St. Mary Rural District Council Act, 1928.
39. Lewes Water Act, 1928.
40. Port of London Act, 1928.
41. Exeter Corporation Act, 1928.
1037
42. Rickmansworth and Uxbridge Valley Water Act, 1928.
43 Caerphilly Urban District Council Act, 1928.
44. Llandudno Urban District Council Act 1928.

And to the following Measure passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919:—

Ecclesiastical Commissioners (Provision for Unbeneficed Clergy) Measure, 1928.

Orders of the Day — RATING AND VALUATION (APPORTIONMENT) BILL.

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Miss LAWRENCE: When the proceedings were interrupted, I was in the middle of an explanation of a small but somewhat difficult question. How difficult it can be is seen by the two Amendments on the Paper. That which I now move was put down after consultation with those who actually do this business. The difficulty is that we have had two different definitions of persons of the working class. Those two definitions are by no means the same. The definition of "persons of the working class" includes in actual practice very many persons who could not be called labourers. The second largest class of persons actually housed on the London County Council housing estates, is made up of clerks. Then there are many other classes of persons of that character who are classed as persons of the working class, by the kind consent of the Minister, but who by no means could ever be persons of the labouring class. It is a very awkward and bad thing to have two definitions of persons when you desire to proceed with the derating of property. Those who have to deal with these matters assert that any rating qualification which depends on the sort of tenant is in itself highly unsatisfactory. It is highly unsatisfactory because you have to conduct personal inquiries before you can rate or de-rate any house and it gives the authorities a great deal of trouble.
Secondly, the qualification may change from year to year, or in the case of this property even from week to weak. That will introduce an undesirable complexity
into rating matters. Those to whom I have spoken, who are persons of great experience in these matters, express their very strong desire for some criterion that can be applied to the property and not to the tenant. These inquiries as to whether a person is of the labouring class—he may be a clerk or a school teacher or someone who is very doubtfully a person of the labouring class—are troublesome and unnecessary Further they may be disagreeable to the housing authorities, whose precepts have so much extended since the Act of 1906.
After a great deal of consideration and after having consulted experts, I have put down this Amendment, which attaches she cottage garden to the size of the house and the rental value of the house and not to the class of tenant. The words of the Amendment are taken from the Housing Act of 1925. Houses of this rental are the houses of which the landlord is bound to do the repairs. It is clear that a very small house with a cottage garden is, prima facie, likely to be occupied by a person of the class that we have in mind. But from the point of view of the rating authority, the convenience of being able to take up your records and to mark off the houses which are to be de-rated and those which are not, is a thing that can hardly be exaggerated. Hon. Members opposite are never tired of speaking of economy. Here is a piece of economy for them. We have voted £150,000 of good money for the execution of the complicated manœuvres recommended in this Bill. Every 6d. that we can take off that work is a 6d. worth consideration by this Committee. I put this proposal forward at-a clear, workable and understandable thing, which any rating officer can apply without doubt or fear.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that the Amendment can be properly described as the hon. Member described it—as perfectly clear, workable and understandable; for if she will read the Amendment into the Clause she will find that it is extremely difficult to understand and is in fact defective in drafting. But I do not want to dwell on that point, because I think that the intention of the hon. Member is clear. I would again remind the Committee that we are not here de-rating or proposing to de-
rate any agricultural property for the first time; we are dealing with agricultural property which is to a large extent already de-rated, and all that we are doing is to increase the de-rating from 75 per cent. to 100 per cent. Therefore, when the hon. Member brings forward a proposal of this kind as a means of effecting economy, I would point out that there can be no possible economy, because the separation of the properties which are in receipt of relief has already been effected. It does not help one to separate properties where in fact they are already separated.
What is the justification for the proposal to alter the words of the Bill? The hon. Member alluded to this as a new definition, but she is herself not unaware that this is not a new definition but is a definition which dates back to the Act of 1896. Although it is perhaps not exactly the expression that we should use if we were beginning to-day for the first time to deal with this matter, and although the expression "labouring class" is one which enables a good many of us to come under that definition as we understand it to-day, yet I think that the practical point to which we have to address our mind is this: Has this definition given rise in practice to any difficulty? I submit that it has not. It was significant that although the hon. Member said that it might give rise to difficulties, and she said that she had consulted people who had expressed strong views, nevertheless she did not bring forward evidence to show that any serious doubts have arisen in this connection as to what was meant. Therefore, I put it to the Committee that this definition, having stood the test of time, having provided a test by which properties could be separated ever since 1896 when they first got the relief of 50 per cent., which was in 1923 increased to 75 per cent., there is now no occasion to alter it.
I had better say a word on the particular proposal that the hon. Member has put forward. We must try to keep clear in our minds what it is that we are trying to do here. We are defining a cottage garden. We say that a cottage garden exceeding a quarter of an acre has to be separated, and it is understood that one exceeding that area is to be treated as agricultural land and there-
after is to enjoy the benefit of any proposals for de-rating agricultural land. But here it is not merely to be a garden attached to a cottage but a garden attached to a cottage occupied by persons of a particular class. The reason for that is perfectly obvious. It is not to arouse the susceptibilities of the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Paling), for instance. This is no invidious distinction. On the contrary this is to say that the persons who do not belong to the labouring class are not to have their gardens treated as agricultural land and de-rated, even if they exceed a quarter of an acre. Why is that stated? Again I think it is not very difficult to see why. It is because it has been assumed, we may take it, during the last 32 years, that a person in the labouring class if he had a garden exceeding a quarter of an acre would be using it for the purpose of producing useful food, whereas a person of a more wealthy class might very well have a garden exceeding a quarter of an acre which he desired to use solely fox the purposes of horticulture. It is not desired to give the benefit of de-rating to such a person.
What does the hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) propose? She does not propose that we should continue this definition which, as I said, has worked in practice. She is going to make the test the rent of a particular cottage and, in justification of that proposal, she says it is extremely unlikely that a small house would be inhabited by anybody but a person of the labouring class or, as she terms it, the working class. Are we sure that that is the case? Is not one of the complaints frequently made in all parts of the House of Commons, in connection with the difficulties of housing in the rural districts, that wealthy people come out of the towns, take these small cottages and use them for week-end or holiday purposes, to the exclusion of persons of the working class or the labouring class1? It would appear that in this matter we shall have to protect the working class or labouring class against the hon. Member for East Ham. She wants to say that a person who has been fortunate enough to obtain one of these small houses at a small rent for week-end purposes, may enlarge indefinitely the pleasure garden attached to the cottage and have the benefit of the de-rating of agricultural land. I do
not know that such is the intention of the hon. Member; but I think the Committee will see that that would be the effect of the Amendment, and in these circumstances, I cannot imagine that she would desire to press it.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman concluded his remarks without referring to the main question. What is his definition of "labouring class"? That is the main point which the hon. Member for East Ham (Miss Lawrence) desire to have cleared up and I think she argued logically that it would be helpful to assessment committees if they knew what was the Minister's definition of the term. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Act of 1896 as the starting point of legislation of this kind. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the terms "cottage garden" and "exceeding a quarter of an acre" are mentioned in the 1896 Act?

Sir K. WOOD indicated assent.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand, then, that the 25 per cent. relief of 1896 and the 50 per cent. relief of 1923 have been given to any member of the labouring class who has a cottage garden exceeding a quarter of an acre in size? If that is the law, the right hon. Gentleman ought to be able to tell us what is the definition of "labouring class." He at this moment is responsible to the nation for providing a definition, because this is his Bill, and if he fails to provide a definition we must find ways and means of doing so at a price. If it is the case that a definition has been in existence for 30 years it may be that assessment committees and rating authorities all over the country have shirked the duty of applying that definition and that thousands of people may have failed to get the relief to which they were entitled owing to the lack of clarity concerning this matter. It seems clear from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he has not attempted to seek any information. Because there may have been no complaints from unfortunate people who have been deprived of what they were legally entitled to the right hon. Gentleman does rot think that there is any need for further elucidation.
The sum mentioned in the Amendment of 10 shillings a week rental is not such
a fabulous sum. I know a number of local authorities are seeking the right hon. Gentleman's assistance and sympathy in cases where rents almost amounting to that sum are being charged for council houses under the 1919 Act. The workers can no longer afford to pay these rents and are asking to be relieved of some of this heavy burden. I know that council houses have not gardens exceeding a quarter of an acre for each house, and that a tenant of that type would not come under the terms of this Bill, but there may be cases of smaller houses with larger gardens, inhabited by persons who belong to the labouring class, but who would not receive any advantage under this Measure unless and until the interpretation of the term "labouring class" is made much clearer than it has been made up to the present. The rating authorities ought to know more definitely to whom this Bill and similar Measures apply.

Mr. HARRIS: I think we have all the same purpose in view, and what, the Minister has said seems to agree with the idea that this advantage should only apply to those who can properly be described by the rather vague terms of "labouring class" or "working class." I am inclined to agree with the right hon. Gentleman that at present there is a good deal of abuse owing to well-to-do people from the towns buying or leasing small cottages in the country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Because there is a shortage of housing accommodation in the rural areas. Just in the same way, the Rent Restriction Act may be open to objection, but it is necessary in order to meet the conditions of the times. There is a famine in labourers' cottages in the country and I do not want to encourage people from the towns to take up cottages of that type and convert them to purposes of amusement, when they already have houses in the towns. I suggest, however, that the Amendment which appears later on in the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Miss Lawrence)—to insert the words
within the meaning of the National Health Insurance Acts"—
proposes a more practical way of achieving her purpose. This definition is always a difficult one. The hon. Member herself knows that on the Housing Committee of the London County Council,
we were constantly faced with the difficulty of interpreting the term "working class" and a great deal of criticism has been levelled against the occupiers of houses which were built, ostensibly for the working class, on various housing estates in and around London because of the difficulty of interpretation. We found it practically impossible to interpret those words in such a way as to give general satisfaction. The suggestion that the difficulty might be got over by utilising the phraseology of the Insurance Acts seems a practical proposal, and is, at any rate, worthy of consideration by the Minister. All we want to do is to see that the advantage of these provisions should go to the right people and not to people for whom they are not intended.

Amendment negatived.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 2, to leave out the word "dwelling-houses," and to insert instead thereof the word "farm-houses."
This Amendment is to be taken in conjunction with the definition of the word "farm-house" which appears in the Amendment later on the Order Paper proposing to add to the Clause the words:
'Farm house' means a dwelling-house forming part of an agricultural hereditament which is occupied solely for the purpose of cultivating such hereditament within the meaning of paragraph (e) of Section five of the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896.
In Section 5 of the Agricultural Rates Act of 1896 it is laid down that a farmhouse must be assessed for purposes of rating at what it is worth to the farmer for the purposes of occupation, with the holding which he cultivates. It is understood that the Agricultural Rates Act of 1896, which is now continued by the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, will lapse permanently on 1st April next year. A great deal of apprehension is felt that one of the effects of this Measure may be to put up assessments on farmhouses over and above the present level. In many parts of the country there is little doubt that farmhouses would let for a considerably higher rent if they were let for other purposes than for occupation by a farmer, for the purpose of cultivating the land. So long as a farmhouse is used for the purposes of cultiva-
tion, and for that purpose only, we are anxious that the assessment should not be raised.

Sir K. WOOD: I hope to be able to give my hon. and gallant Friend the assurance which he requires. The present law on this matter, as he has said, is contained in Section 5 of the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, which states:
Where any hereditament consists partly of agricultural land and partly of buildings, the gross estimated rental of the buildings, valued separately, in pursuance of this Act, from the agricultural land shall, while the buildings are used only for the cultivation of the said land be calculated not on the structural cost but on the rent at which they would be expected to be let to a tenant from year to year if they could only be so used, but the total gross estimated rent value shall not be increased by the said separate value.
It is true that the Agricultural Rates Act of 1896 comes to an end some time next year, but as the hon. and gallant Member knows we shall be dealing in other Bills with matters of this kind, and we shall then have to come to a decision in this connection. The hon. and gallant Member will have full opportunity on a future occasion of raising this point but this Bill does not affect the position in any way. It is, therefore, not necessary to press the Amendment upon the Committee. The law is plain at the moment and these matters will be dealt with in our Bill in November when the larger question will be raised. That question has been the subject of a Memorandum which hon. Members, no doubt, have carefully studied and digested by this time. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will be satisfied with this explanation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. RILEY: I beg to move, in page 3, line 4, after the word "garden," to insert the words "allotment or allotment garden."
The purpose of this Amendment is to make quite sure that buildings, such as glasshouses or huts for allotment holders, shall be entitled to the relief which is intended for buildings defined in this part of the Clause. I suggest that this Amendment, being eminently reasonable, is one that can be accepted. As the Clause reads, agricultural buildings
means buildings…occupied together with agricultural land or being or forming
part of a market garden, and in either case used solely in connection with agricultural operations thereon.
While allotments are included in the definition of agricultural land, they are not included in this definition which relates to buildings, and the object of my Amendment is to clarify the meaning of the definition, and to make it clear that allotments or allotment gardens shall have the benefit of this Bill. It is generally true that in the past small buildings on allotments, and even glasshouses, have not universally been assessed for rating, but in recent years the practice of assessing such buildings for rating has been growing.

Mr. HARNEY: "Agricultural buildings" are denned as
buildings…occupied together with agricultural land.
What "agricultural land" is, is defined in the first part of the Sub-section, Then it says:
or forming part of a market garden.
In looking at the first part of the Subsection, I find that a market garden is agricultural land. It occurs to me that it would lead to confusion if the definition stood as it does now, for "agricultural buildings" means something more than buildings attached to agricultural land, and means also buildings attached to market gardens.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Member for drawing attention to the point, which is a pertinent one in respect to the definition of agricultural buildings. May I first deal with the Amendment? You must take the definition of agricultural buildings as a whole. "Agricultural buildings" in this part of the Clause
means buildings…occupied together with agricultural land.
If you turn to the first part of the Subsection, you find there a definition of a comprehensive character showing what is included in the term "agricultural land," and among the things included in "agricultural land" are "orchards or allotments." Therefore, it is clear that "agricultural land" includes allotments, and the buildings which are occupied together with allotments are buildings which would be agricultural buildings within the meaning of this part of the Clause, and would therefore come in for rating relief.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: If that is so, the section includes unnecessary words, which would make it doubtful in the mind of any assessing authority as to whether allotments are included. If the definition read:
Agricultural buildings means buildings occupied together with agricultural land used solely in connection with agricultural operations thereon,
we should have a definition which was entirely coherent with the previous definition, and which included everything in the first definition of agricultural land. But if you put in the words "market garden," you impliedly leave out allotments and allotment gardens. It would make the definition watertight if you left out the words "market garden," and made the definition refer to agricultural buildings used solely for agricultural purposes.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That was the point to which I was coming, the point that war raised by the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney). I desire co give the Committee an explanation why we have thought it necessary to include in this part of the definition the words "being or forming part of a market garden," whereas we have not brought in allotments or any of the other kinds of property which go to make up the definition of agricultural land. In the case of market gardens, there are glass structures which may be considered to be buildings covering practically the whole of the land; the whole land is, in fact, buildings. Therefore, it seemed to us that there might be some difficulty in bringing such buildings within a definition which speaks of "buildings occupied together with agricultural land," because if they occupied the whole of the agricultural land, it might be argued that they could not be buildings occupied together with the land. That is the reason why we thought it necessary to differentiate between market gardens and other kinds of agricultural land.

Mr. HARDIE: Would a forcing frame used for forcing seeds be a building?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.

Mr. RILEY: I moved this Amendment because there has been some uncertainty among allotment holders, and, after the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. HARRIS: I beg to move, in page 3, line 4, to leave out the word "solely."
This word is open to confusion. I quite understand that the purpose of the Minister is to see that agricultural buildings are not exploited in order to escape assessment for rates, but I can see the insertion of the word "solely" leading to all sorts of difficulties. Take the case of a motor which is used in a milk round, and which might be installed inside an agricultural building. It is used to deliver milk for the greater part of the week, and in the week-end it might be used for other purposes. I suggest that that is quite a possible use of an agricultural building. Then take the case of a cart used for transport purposes being installed inside an agricultural building; the cart is mainly but not solely used for agricultural purposes, being partly used for the purposes of a common carrier. In the country villages this is very usual. Under the Clause as worded, if the cart or motorcar were used for any other purpose except agriculture, the agricultural building would lose the advantage of the provisions of this Bill. I would suggest, therefore, that it would be wise to omit the word "solely," and let the Clause read quite clearly what is the intention of the Committee.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that this Amendment is to be read in conjunction with the next Amendment in the name of the hon. Gentleman—in page 3, line 5, to leave out the words "agricultural operations thereon," and to insert instead thereof the words "the business carried on on the said land."

Mr. HARRIS: Not necessarily. What we are driving at is to prevent a vehicle or anything being stored in an agricultural building depriving that building of relief.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The words to which the hon. Member must address his attention are the words that follow "solely":
in connection with agricultural operations thereon.

Mr. HARNEY: Supposing one of a group of agricultural buildings is used sometimes as a garage. Is it intended that that building should not be derated? If it were put up for agricul-
tural purposes, but was not used solely for those purposes, would it outlaw the whole of the buildings in that group, or only outlaw the particular building, or any of them?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think that it would be the hereditament which would be concerned, but if the suggestion be that, for instance, a motor vehicle, which was generally used for agricultural operations, was occasionally used for some other purpose, I do not think that that would in any way invalidate the relief on the building, as long as it was used in connection with agriculture.

Mr. HARRIS: Can we put in the word "mainly"? The word "solely" is very complete, and covers everything.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am advised that, as far as this word is concerned, there would be no ambiguity about it, unless the object of the hon. Member is to allow other operations than those of agricultural operations to benefit under the Bill. I understand that that is not his object. If that be so, I am advised that there is no difficulty about the words as they stand.

Amendment negatived.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. RILEY: In view of the explanation given by the Minister, I do not propose to move my Amendment—in 7.0 p.m. page 3, line 5, after the word "agricultural," to insert the words "or horticultural."

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dennis Herbert): The next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) is not in order here—in page 3, line 5, at the end, to insert the words "'In this Act' means in this Act and in the principal Act."

Mr. HARNEY: I would suggest that it is most important that the Government should consider my Amendment, which is important in this way. You are now dealing with Clause 2, which purports to give a definition of expressions used in the Act. It gives the definition of one expression "agricultural land" and of another, "agricultural buildings." I submit that I am entitled to ask for this definition which, if it is not given, will lead to great difficulties.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must put down an Amendment in the proper place on the definition Clause at the end of the Bill. I do not select it here.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. JOHNSTON: Clause 2, as it now stands, will, in our judgment, sooner or later be a subvention to landlordism. About £4,750,000 raised by the general community is to be given under this Clause to relieve agricultural land of the remaining portion of its local rates. The argument was used earlier in the proceedings by an hon. Member opposite that the rating relief given by previous Acts had not as a matter of fact resulted in increasing land value. That is at least disputable, and there are certain parts of the country where land rent, for whatever cause, has indisputably been raised. There has been a great increase in the number of owner occupiers, men who were compelled to purchase their land at peak prices, which were undoubtedly swallowed up by the owners of the land. There are certain parts of the country where agricultural land is selling at a higher price now than 15 or 20 years ago. Land adjacent to the towns, which is presently rated at its agricultural value, is in many cases undoubtedly being held up for a rise owing to expected industrial uses which will be made of it.
I am barred from using illustrations from Scotland at the moment, but there are great tracts in Scotland, which are rated presently at their agricultural value, and which are being held up for possible industrial developments, not only building developments, but also expected developments such as the Forth and Clyde Canal. Owners of this land are, under the provisions of Clause 2, going to receive a subvention from the general community. There are no safeguards whereby we can be assured that the bona fide agriculturist shall, under this clause, be relieved of rating upon his tools of production. There is no safeguard whatever, and sooner or later the subvention will fall into the category known as pure land rental.
In Scotland, the position is even worse. There the tenant farmer to-day is completely de-rated on his agricultural land, and the owner is rated upon the
remaining fourth, but, under the provisions of this Bill, the owner is now to be de-rated of his fourth on the sole condition that he shares the swag with the tenant during the continuance of the tenancy. In other words the tenant farmer is not now only to be de-rated entirely, but he is to receive 50 per cent. of the subvention which the landlord is to get, so that the tenant farmer in Scotland is actually going to be in pocket as the result of the provisions of this Bill. Certainly he is going to be in pocket during the continuance of the existing tenancy. That existing tenancy will vary. Some tenancies will fall in this year, some next, and so on, but sooner or later this de-rating without safeguards means an increase of land rents and will mean an additional subvention to the landlord class in this country. Because we believe that, because we believe that there are other more satisfactory methods which can be taken—which I would not be allowed to expatiate upon to-night—to relieve agriculture or the implements of agriculture, or, as the economists would probably call them, the tools of agriculture from imposts which those tools ought not to be called upon to bear, methods which would not necessarily and inevitably result in an increase of land rent, we hope the Committee will reject this Clause.

Mr. HARDIE: During the discussion of this Clause there have been a great many points of view put forward by those from Scotland. Scottish Members have received a great many communications from those interested under the Clause, but I am speaking now about what I know from my own personal observation. From my earliest days at school, when the holidays were arranged to suit the agricultural work of the district, I can look back upon all that comes under this Clause with something of the practical touch. Every one of the things that are included under Clause 2 might be claimed by some to be improvements. We know in Scotland that, under our system there, the fight has always been to get some guarantee that where a man makes any kind of improvement, he shall be able to get the results of his own labours. Because that has failed, I reason that the same thing will take place in this case, in whatever form relief comes. Just as every improvement has been taken by the landlord in the past, so
logically and from experience every relief given by de-rating is bound to go the same way. If the Government had been sincere about helping agriculture, it need not have taken this second-hand and roundabout way of doing it.
This Clause emphasises that it is lip-service to agriculture which the Government pays. A Government understanding agriculture thoroughly would not have hesitated to free agriculture altogether, but there is only one way of freeing agriculture. That is not by a system of de-rating, but by giving those engaged in agriculture that freedom and those conditions which set aside the present-day fears that agriculturists have about their own work. That is what has lain behind our troubles in Scotland. That is what nearly ruined Irish agriculture. The power of the landlord meant that every improvement lowered a little the surplus the tenant required for his own existence. There you had a land going to wreck. A sound agricultural policy would take the whole agricultural land, free not only from these things but from everything that prevents the higher development of agriculture. Our land system in this country has prevented the development of agriculture. I had hoped that the Minister was going to make some special provision for Scotland on this Clause, because we have more difficulties of an agricultural kind than there are in England and Wales. If the Government had been sincere, as it is not, these things would have been carried out. I still hope that even now those who are really interested in agriculture and who do not merely pay lip-service to it, but who want to see the basic industry of the country free, will see that this Clause is defeated.

Mr. RILEY: I want to call attention to the enormous obligation which the country will undertake in the future for the relief of agriculture. Last week I put a question to the Minister of Health as to the amount of rates for which agricultural land and buildings would have been liable last year if it had not been for the operation of the Agricultural Rates Acts of 1906 and 1923. The reply I received was that in England and Wales agricultural land would have been liable for £12,400,000. In view of
the fact that under this Clause agricultural land and buildings will, as from next year, be entirely free from rates, the general taxation of the country will have to find, on the basis of the answer given me by the Minister, at least £12,500,000 per annum for those rates, and I doubt whether that is the full figure. Agriculture has been receiving relief on a lower scale since 1896, and I venture to say that the total amount which has already been contributed to its relief is not less than from £100,000,000 to £130,000,000. I agree with the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) that one could be more or less reconciled to this enormous contribution being made to agriculture if one were satisfied that reasonable steps had been taken to see that the relief really assisted the people for whom it was intended.
I do not argue that the additional sum of £4,750,000 which this Bill provides will pass immediately to the owners of land. There is no doubt that for some few years the cultivating farmers may derive some benefit from it, but what is quite certain is that in the course of years this sum will be transformed into increased land values and increased rents. About that there can be no question whatever. Therefore, the least which any Government responsible for public expenditure could have done would have been to take some safeguarding steps to make sure that the relief assisted agriculture. In the Corn Production Act of 1917 it was laid down that the owners of land should not be entitled to raise rents as the result of the assistance they received and that in the fixing of rents the assistance given should not be taken into account. Why is there no safeguard of that kind in this Bill? It is because the Government are following the traditional policy of assisting their political friends, the landed interests of this country. That policy ought not to commend itself to hon. Members here representing national interests. There is also one other objection, and perhaps a more weighty one. What has been the result of giving blocks of national money to assist in subsidising industries? We can see what has happened in the case of agriculture since 1896. Farmers were first relieved of 50 per cent., and since 1923 have been relieved of 75 per cent. of rates on land and farm buildings, and yet agriculture is
still demanding more. Is agriculture any better off to-day as a result of this relief than it was in 1896? It is clear from the experience of the past that this policy of rate relief does not meet the problem, and I think this Clause ought to be rejected.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I rise only because of a few words which occur in the speech of the hon. Member for Dews-bury (Mr. Riley). He seems to think that because agriculture has been getting something in the neighbourhood of £12,500,000 it is getting more than it deserves, and he fears also, I gather, that this additional relief will go into the pockets of the landowners. There is no reason for that fear, however. But as regards his first argument, let us investigate his figures. The agricultural produce of this country is worth, probably, something in the neighbourhood of £250,000,000. The sum of 2½ per cent. on £250,000,000 is not very much. In addition, there is the agricultural produce imported which could be grown in this country, amounting to something like £200,000,000. Supposing we had a system of safeguarding applied to agriculture—the hon. Member himself mentioned safeguarding—and put on a duty of 33⅓ per cent., what an enormous assistance we should get then. The hon. Member argues that £12,500,000 is an enormous sum to give to the assistance of agriculture, but under a policy of safeguarding agriculture would get £60,000,000 or £70,000,000

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: That is what you want.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: The hon. Member for Dewsbury might also consider the position of the co-operative societies, who are comparatively immune from the present system of taxation. In common fairness he ought to do that when talking of the position of agriculture. I do not know whether I shall be in order in discussing it, but are we quite satisfied with the definition of agricultural land and buildings in the Clause 1 This definition is a very old one and on the whole, with some exceptions, it has, I think, worked well, but the discussion this afternoon has brought forward certain points, and I would ask the Minister to consider—not between now and the Report stage, but between now and the introduction of the next Bill, if the Conservative party is
in power after the next election—whether the definition could be amended in some way. I do not think the Committee can feel very grateful to the Liberal party for the Amendment they brought in. If they had succeeded in their efforts to rate sporting rights I am inclined to think that where land was infested with rabbits and the owner endeavoured to shoot them an effort would have been made to rate him in respect of sporting rights.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: On a point of Order. I wonder how far any hon. Member from this side would be allowed to go in replying to the hon. and gallant Member, who is now dealing with something which is not in Clause 2.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member will be allowed to make a reply to what the hon. and gallant Member is now saying if he gets the opportunity to speak on this Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I am dealing now with the question of sports, and I hope I may say something on the subject of sporting rights, and call attention to the possibility of what might happen if that mythical pheasant attacked the mangold wurzel and the farmer attempted to defend himself. Under the Liberal Amendment he would be totally unable to do so. We are very grateful to the Liberal party for the amusement they have afforded us, and I am very glad we have got the definitions we have.

Mr. MacLAREN: In the last dying minutes of the discussion of this Clause I wish to point out that, as it now stands, agriculture is to have free services paid for by the rest of the community, loads will be made by the taxpayer, tic development of electricity schemes will be carried out at the cost of the taxpayer, and education and all the other services will be given gratuitously to the agricultural interests. The argument has been put forward that this rate relief will benefit the landowner. Undoubtedly it will. It has been said before, and there is no harm in saying it again. In the Corn Production Act certain Clauses were inserted with the object of preventing landowners benefiting, but despite those Clauses we know what happened. The
advantages of that Act went to the land owners when they were selling their land, and the same thing will happen here. I do not blame the Conservative party for being kind to their friends, but I do blame the lethargy of the public outside in not being so keen in defending their interests as are the Conservatives in defending the interests of their friends. Their friends will be remarkably well suited by this subtle and well devised scheme. Hon. Members opposite have been condemning us for our bureaucratic tendencies, but the administration of this Act, and especially of these Clauses, will entail the services of a highly-paid body of bureaucrats, paid by the taxpayer, to protect the land-owners interests and give agriculture free services. We know what will happen when the landowner is selling his property with these advantages attached thereto. Hon. Members opposite, knowing they will have a solid vote for the Clause in the Lobby, can afford to smile, but the time will come when the people will rouse themselves

and wreck this Bill. If we can do anything to wreck it in the course of its passage through the House we will do so. I am only adumbrating the old truth that the landlord stands to gain as long as we do not challenge him. If you are anxious to help agriculture you would have done what was proposed under the Agricultural Rates Act, 1923, and unrated improvements, I remember well that I moved an Amendment to that effect. The Government would not consider it. No unrating of the agricultural workers' improvements, but every relief for the land; but as the agricultural worker does not own much—

It being half-past Seven of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 28th June, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Seven of the Clock at this day's sitting.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 279: Noes, 110.

Division No. 224.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cassels, J. D.
Eden, Captain Anthony


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Albery, Irving James
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Ellis, R. G.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Apsley, Lord
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Chapman, Sir S.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Astor, Viscountess
Chilcott, Sir Warden
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Atholl, Duchess of
Christie, J. A.
Fermoy, Lord


Atkinson, C.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Fielden, E. B.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Clarry, Reginald George
Finburgh, S.


Balniel, Lord
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Ford, Sir P. J.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Forrest, W.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Colman, N. C. D.
Fraser, Captain Ian


Bennett, A. J.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Cooper, A. Duff
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Bethel, A.
Cope, Major Sir William
Ganzonl, Sir John


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Couper, J. B.
Gates, Percy


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bourne, Captain Robert Crott
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Gower, Sir Robert


Brass, Captain W.
Crawfurd, H. E.
Grace, John


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Grant, Sir J. A.


Briggs, J. Harold
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Briscoe, Richard George
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Griffith, F. Kingsley


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Grotrian, H. Brent


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Ysovll)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Bullock, Captain M.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hacking, Douglas H.


Burman, J. B.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Campbell, E. T.
Drewe, C.
Hamilton, Sir George


Hammersley, S. S.
Meller, R. J.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W.)


Harland, A.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Harney, E. A.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Shepperson, E. W.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n A Kinc'dlne, C.)


Headlam, Lieut-Colonel C. M.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Smithers, Waldron


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Hopkins, J, W. W.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Hume, Sir G. H.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Storry-Deans, R.


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Streatfelld, Captain S. R.


Hurd, Percy A.
Nuttall, Ellis
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hurst, Gerald B.
Oakley, T.
Tasker, R-Inigo.


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Templeton, W. P.


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Iveagh, Countess of
Perring, Sir William George
Thompson, Luke (Sundsrland)


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Palo, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Jephcott, A. R.
Pilcher, G.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Preston, William
Waddington, R.


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on Hull)


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Raine, Sir Waiter
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Ramsden, E.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Knox, Sir Alfred
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Lamb, J. Q
Raid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Held, D. D. (County Down)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Remer, J. R.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Wells, S. R.


Livingston, A. M.
Rice, Sir Frederick
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymole


Looker, Herbert William
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Wiggins, William Martin


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Lumley, L. R.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Ropner, Major L.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Withers, John James


McLean, Major A.
Russell, Alexander West-(Tynemouth)
Wolmer, Viscount


Macmillan, Captain H.
Rye, F. G.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Salmon, Major I.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wood, Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)


Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Yorburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sanderson, Sir Frank



Malone, Major P. B.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Margesson, Captain D.
Savery, S. S.
Mr. Penny and Captain Wallace.


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gardner, J. P.
Lansbury, George


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Lawrence, Susan


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gibbins, Joseph
Lee, F.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Gillett, George M.
Lindley, F. W.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Gosling, Harry
Lowth, T.


Barnes, A.
Graham, Rt. Hon-Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lunn, William


Barr, J.
Greenall, T.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)


Batey, Joseph
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
MacLaren, Andrew


Bondfield, Margaret
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Bowerman, Rt Hon. Charles W.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Briant, Frank
Groves, T.
March, S.


Broad, F. A.
Grundy, T. W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Bromfield, William
Hall, F. (York, W. R, Normanton)
Oliver, George Harold


Bromley, J.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Paling, W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hardie, George D.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Buchanan, G.
Hayday, Arthur
Potts, John S.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Cape, Thomas
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Riley, Ben


Charleton, H. C.
Hirst, G. H.
Ritson, J.


Cluse, W. S.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Eliand)


Connolly, M.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sakiatvaia, Shapurji


Cove, W. G.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Scrymgeour, E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Scurr, John


Day, Harry
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston).


Dennison, R.
Kelly, W. T.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Duncan, C.
Kennedy, T.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Dunnico, H.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Shinwell, E.




Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Sitch, Charless H.
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Tinker, John Joseph
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Townend, A. E.
Windsor, Walter


Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Varley, Frank B.
Wright, W.


Snell, Harry
Viant, S. P.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)



Stephen, Campbell
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wellock, Wiltred
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards.


Sutton, J. E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 3.—(Definition of industrial hereditaments.)

Mr. HARNEY: I beg to move in page 3, line 8, after the second word "hereditament" to insert the words, "or that part thereof."
If my Amendment is carried it will remove from the scheme what a great number of people consider to be a great injustice. There may be a tradesman who bakes bread on the ground floor and sells it in his shop above as a retail business, but that is not an industrial hereditament at all. My point is that that class of person should be de-rated in respect of the productive proportion of his industry. There is a good deal of distributive and productive work connected very closely one with the other, and it is highly' desirable that the distributive part should be separated from the productive part.

Mr. THURTLE: I wish to support this Amendment, because I think it makes for clearness in the Clause. I take this course, because I have a special reason as representing a constituency like Shore-ditch, which once upon a time was a respectable residential area in which large houses of the middle-class type were situated. Since that time many of those houses have been converted into tenements, and the large gardens attached to them have been used for the erection of workshops and factories. These houses, with their gardens, are rated as a single hereditament. The Town Clerk of Shore-ditch tells me that there are some thousands of these hereditaments in the borough of Shoreditch, and it is not at all clear, as the Bill now stands, whether such hereditaments would be treated primarily as dwelling houses, and only secondarily as industrial establishments. If such words as are proposed by this Amendment are inserted in the Clause I think our anxieties would be at an end. I support this Amendment because I think it is the intention of the Mover to give relief to factories and workshops of
the kind I have mentioned, and unless some such safeguarding words as those contained in this Amendment are inserted there is a danger that valuers will say that those factories and workshops, having been established after the dwelling houses, and being secondary in character, will not be treated as they should be.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. and learned Gentleman who raised this matter referred to the fact that Clause 3 gives a definition of what is called an industrial hereditament, and very largely in this Clause, so far as industrial hereditaments are concerned, is found the main feature of the Government's scheme. The exact proposal, putting it very broadly and, I am afraid, rather roughly, is that the assessment committee will have to come to a conclusion as to whether the particular hereditament is primarily used for the purposes Bet out in Clause 3, and, if it is used for any of the six matters which are enumerated in the first part of the Clause, it will not receive the rating relief which is proposed in the Government's scheme. Very briefly, the whole idea, as has been constantly stated from time to time from this Bench and also in various parts of the country, is to stimulate productive industry.
The hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) and the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) have both referred to the position of the small man who, perhaps, occupies a dwelling-house, at the rear of which he has some kind of business or trade. I venture to suggest to both hon. Members that the best way of assisting such people at the present time is undoubtedly to get trade and industry running again at what I would call full speed. If you brought in every small man, and apportioned the relief, as it would have to be apportioned, among the very many—I might almost say millions—who would be thus brought within the scheme, hon. Members will at once see that the relief would be to a very large extent dissipated. If, on the
other hand, you really want to assist those cases, I venture to suggest to the Committee that the Government scheme is the best and the right one, because, if you can reduce the terrible amount of unemployment which exists at the present moment, almost the first people to benefit will be the small householder and the small trader who, to a very large extent, depends upon the prosperity of the country.
Take the ease of, say, the small trader in what we call a necessitous area He, I suppose, is the man who is suffering as much as anyone at the present time, simply because works have closed down and industry in very many cases is at a standstill. If you can get that industry going again, if you can restore that vitality to trade which we all desire, the very first to benefit will be the people to whom the hon. Member for Shoreditch has referred. Therefore, entirely apart from the main objects of the Government's scheme, I say that the best way to assist those people is not by dividing this relief into a very large number of small portions, but, if we can, as I believe we shall to a considerable extent by means of the Government's scheme, to reduce the very large and serious unemployment figures which exist at the present moment. I need hardly say that a great deal of consideration has been given to this particular definition, but for the reasons I have stated—in the first place, because we desire to attack the problem in what we believe to Be the best and most scientific way, and, secondly, because, even from the point of view of these people themselves, this is the best way in the Government's judgment of attacking it—I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: The Parliamentary Secretary is obviously in a difficulty, for, in a very short speech, he has said the same thing about six times, and he has very conveniently avoided altogether dealing with what is the purpose of this Amendment. He has given a general discourse upon the main object of the Government in bringing relief to productive industry, but, obviously, the object of this and several other Amendments on the Paper is to try to do away with the gross injustice which, on the face, of it this Clause perpetrates. It is no use the Parlia-
mentary Secretary saying that the best thing to do for the little man is to relieve large productive industry in order generally to improve trade, so that he may thereby get a little more trade. The right hon. Gentleman knows, probably as well as any man in this Chamber—not only because of his Ministerial position, but because of his legal knowledge of the assessment position generally—that all over London and our other large towns you have a great variety of circumstances in regard to the productive industries which serve the distributive trade in this country. Whether you think of the baker or the boot producer or repairer, the clothier, the tailor, and so on, you have a tremendous variety of circumstances, and I will try just to illustrate how futile the answer of the Parliamentary Secretary is.
Take the thousands of small bakers in the country, and see what is their position. Hon. Members on the other side often complain that these small bakers are handicapped in their competition against the big multiple bakers or against the co-operative societies. Wherever a co-operative society or a great multiple shop-owning company connected with the production of a commodity like bread or boots or clothes carries on its work in a separate factory, it will—because this Bill is going to apply, not only to necessitous productive industry, but to prosperous productive industry as well—receive substantial rating relief, and, whether the state of industry in the country is altered or not by this Measure, the small man will be jeopardised and prejudiced in his future trade relations, because the large firm with a separate factory will get considerable rating relief, while the man who has a small productive undertaking within his own business or domestic curtilage will get no relief at all. That is plain to us from the answer of the Parliamentary Secretary.
It all turns on the question whether there is a separate assessment. Even inside the large firm, inequality occurs, and I will give an example from the Parliamentary Secretary's own constituency. It is just as well that Ministers should have these cases brought to their notice. South of the River, in the Metropolitan area, we have a very large distributive organisation known as the Royal Arsenal Cooperative Society, with headquarters in
the constituency of the right hon. Gentleman. They have two large bread-distributing bases. One is in Brixton. That is a complete, self-contained bread-baking factory of very large dimensions, and it will get a very considerable amount of rating relief every year in these circumstances, for which, of course, the society will be duly thankful. But the other bakery, where almost as much bread is produced in every baking shift, is included in one assessment of all the central premises in Powis Street, Woolwich. It is true that many years ago those particular premises had a number of assessments, but the local assessment committee decided that that block of buildings constituted one curtilage, and could not be separately assessed. Most of the site value to-day would be regarded as being in the part which is alongside the street, and which has special advantages from the point of view of shop frontage. The greater proportion of the site value of the whole premises would probably rest, if it came to be examined in detail, in that part of the premises which comes right up against the pavement, since this constitutes a very big commercial advantage from the point of view of advertising, sales, and attraction of customers; but, because that bakery is attached to these premises, and is really within the same curtilage as the other part of the business which is primarily used for distributive purposes, the bakery will get no relief at all, while the bakery which produces practically no more bread in the large separate factory at Brixton will get relief.
I am not at the moment arguing specially for relief for that bakery at Woolwich; what I am trying to do is to prove, and I think I have proved conclusively, that, if that be the position as between two separate bases of manufacture and distribution within one organisation—and that position exists right through the country—it will set up very unfair competitive conditions between the small man and the large multiple shops in other trades. The Parliamentary Secretary has been very careful not to touch upon that point at all, but simply to give us a general discourse, and he helped himself out of his difficulty by repeating about six times the statement that, after all, the best relief for these people will be
to give a general stimulus to productive industry. They are a productive industry, and they are entitled to the stimulus, but they do not get the stimulus. Instead, they are going to have an additional competitive burden placed upon their backs. Really, it is not treating the Committee quite fairly to ride right off the real purpose of this and subsequent technical Amendments on the Paper, and to make no real answer to the case that we are putting forward.

Mr. E. BROWN: The Parliamentary Secretary seems to have as his favourite word the word "dissipation." He talks about the dissipation of relief on every possible occasion, and seems to think that, once he has used that rather difficult and, in some senses, unpleasant word, he has disposed of all argument on an Amendment. I suggest that in this case the use of the word "dissipation" is entirely unnecessary. This Amendment would not dissipate the relief. What it does is to call for more relief. This Clause will involve the giving of relief to the extent of 75 per cent. to productive industry, and, if this Amendment be carried it will not dissipate relief, but will only add another particular type of productive industry to those to which it has already been decided to give relief. There is no question of dissipation.
The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) has made the point as between the large and the small man, but the matter goes further than that. The discrimination shown in this definition of a productive industry is not merely unfair as between the small and the large man in the same trade, but is unfair as between one small man and another small man in the same trade. I have in mind two bakers in the same town. One has four distributing shops and has his bakery quite apart, while the other has his bakery along with the shop. The one will get relief while the other will not. Again, take the case of another baker who has 12 shops, at one of which happens to be his steam bakery. All that he has to do is to shut down the shop at which he has his steam bakery, and set up another shop some little distance away from the bakery, and he will then come within the definition of a productive industry which we are now discussing.
8.0 p.m.
The Clause as it is now drafted will not be disposed of by arguments such as that brought forward by the Parliamentary Secretary. The fact is that the very definition itself discriminates between one small man and another in the same trade, and it will affect shops and productive factories in every town in the country. I see opposite me hon. Members all of whom can think of constituents of their own who have little businesses. This is particularly the case of the small men. They are working very hard; they have great difficulty in keeping their heads above water; they sell the goods they produce, and they are the very kind of men whom the Conservative party ought to do their best to help, if there is anything in their general case. We have put down this Amendment, and there are other Amendments to follow, in order to raise this very important issue. I suggest that not merely the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary, but the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health himself ought to be here now, because there can be no larger issue raised on this Bill than this unfair distinction to which we are calling attention. I join my protest to that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough. The right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary cannot get away from the Committee stage with arguments about dissipation of the benefits that were put up on the Second Reading. These are practical and constructive Amendments, designed to meet real cases of hardship, and the Committee will do well on all sides carefully to consider this Amendment.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I desire, very briefly, to support this Amendment, and I do so with special pleasure, because I have been asked by the Association of Bakers in my constituency to protest against the way in which this Clause is drafted. I am astonished that the Government have not accepted this Amendment. There are Amendments on this paper which I can well understand the Government rejecting; there are Amendments on the principle of the Bill, which, if carried, would mean that the main lines of the Bill would be shattered, and that it would be, in effect, defeated. But this Amendment, like several others, is intended to give effect to the Bill, and
to improve the language of the Bill so that it will really achieve its purpose. The right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary told us that this Amendment had had consideration, but I think that consideration must have been very slight, because undoubtedly, in a great number of trades, this Clause, as it is drafted, appears to be exceptionally faulty. I have had a memorandum from the bakers in my constituency which I understand they have sent to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health himself. In that, it is pointed out that, of the bakers throughout the country, in the case of something like 75 per cent. their business is carried on in premises which are attached to dwelling houses and retail shops, whereas in the case of only 25 per cent. are the premises solely or mainly devoted to baking. I cannot see that there can be any adequate ground for that very unfair discrimination. Here you have one class of bakery which, through accident, gets relief, while another class of bakery, which is every bit as much a productive work as the other, does not get relief.
The right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary says that you cannot bother about all these little businesses, because you would get into a complete muddle. But there is one thing more important than having to do a lot of detailed work, and that is not being unfair. If the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary does not mind being unfair, surely he minds giving the impression of unfairness, and he will create the impression of unfairness in the minds of 76 per cent. of the bakers who do mot get relief under the Bill. Bakeries, of course, do not by any means stand atom? in this matter; there are all kinds of other trades which are similarly affected. There are, for instance, dressmaking, millinery, tailors' workshops, and cabinet makers' workshops. You have one class of works which are separately assessed, and which therefore get relief, while there are others that may be larger or smaller, but which are similar so far as the men are concerned. But, because they happen to be united with a shop under one assessment, they get no relief. I cannot see how a Bill so unfair, discriminating so unjustly between two classes of people in similar occupations, giving to one and withholding from the
other, can find its way on to the Statute Book in this form. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary that he should have another conference with his chief, and see whether, before the Report stage, they cannot accept this Amendment, or a similar proposal. If he will not do so, we shall support this Amendment, and, so far as I am concerned, I hope very much that it will be pressed to a Division.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Every Member of the House would like to see this rating relief extended to every kind of factory, even if it is attached to some portion of the building which is used for distributive purposes. But the gist of the matter has just been stated by the hon. Member who has sat down. In effect, there are two different problems. One is how are you to get the money to provide relief for all classes of Employers in the smaller factories and workshops, and at what point are you going to say that a factory ceases to be a factory in the real sense of the word and becomes a factory attached to some distributive organisation?

Mr. HARNEY: You could discriminate with little difficulty. The point as to what is a factory and what is not a factory has been defined in the Factories and Workshops Act. Take the definition of "workshop" or "factory" in the Act, say, of 1901, and apply that definition wherever it is applicable. It is true that that would have the effect of bringing the' relief down from the rich man to the poor man.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: The hon. Member has hardly answered the point. The point is, would that definition apply to all the factories? If it would, then I say it is impossible under present conditions, and under the Money Resolution, to apply this relief to all sections of the population who would then come under it. It would be extremely difficult to define what is and what is not a factory; but, if it were as simple as the hon. Member (Mr. Harney) thinks it is, or as difficult as I think it is, the point still remains that, under the scheme put forward by the Government, which is to give a real grant of relief to productive industry with the object of distributing employment, it would be impossible to go to the expense of relieving every form of
distributive organisation which is connected with a small factory, so small that it is hardly worth describing as a factory, and, therefore, you must have some practical limit to the operation of the Bill.

Sir R. HAMILTON: I should like to hear the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken explaining to the owners of small factories and workshops that they are not to get this relief.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I should have no objection to doing so.

Sir R. HAMILTON: I merely say that I would like to hear the hon. Member doing so, and I would like to hear what the small man would say when he knew that the big shop was to get relief while the man who owns the small factory was to get none. That is what we object to, and that is what will be objected to throughout the country. The country has not yet got hold of this grandiose scheme, but, when they do get it, they will say: "We will not put our seal upon such unfairness as a Bill like this." Why should not the small man get the relief? The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) says that it is because it would be difficult. Is that an answer? Is it just or fair that that should be the test? We all want to help productive industry which is in a bad position, but none of us want to help the productive industry that is in a good position. What is the difficulty of discriminating? Has not the right hon. Gentleman got a magnificent Department to help him to say where the relief is required? Why should we give it to the big, strong, upstanding industry and leave the small man without relief? What is the percentage of the small men who are to be left out? I hope that this Amendment will be fought, and fought bitterly, because it goes to the root of the whole Bill. We feel that the Bill is founded to a large extent on injustice. I have received, as I dare say other hon. Members have received, papers from different bodies of traders, from chambers of trade and so on, pointing out the injustice of it. Why should the House of Commons commit an injustice like this with its eyes open? Nothing will give me greater pleasure than to speak in the country as well as in this House against the operation of what I consider an injustice that could be avoided.

Mr. MacLAREN: We have come in this discussion to a point which is well worthy of consideration. The whole thing arises out of a faulty and stupid valuation. You have put in a word in your Clause which I should like to see defined in some Law Court. The Parliamentary Secretary and his chief impeached Members on the Liberal Benches for putting in a word which in their opinion could not be clearly defined in some law action, should any law action arise. How is this word "primarily" to be defined? What is treated as a factory by one Assessment Committee might be deemed not a factory under some other Committee. Would there be uniformity of practice among the various Assessment Committees?

The CHAIRMAN: There is an Amendment on this point later on the Paper.

Mr. MacLAREN: I did not know that. In my case it caught my attention during the course of the discussion. It brings you face to face with the unworkability of this latest expedient in attempting to accomplish something according to the design of the Government in giving relief to industries. The Parliamentary Secretary said the difficulty of the large undertaking would redound to the credit of the small undertakings, because they would feel the benefit of enhanced trade. The small shopkeeper is the man who first feels distress, and feels it more seriously than the large multiple combinations, and the small men are the last to recoup themselves for their losses or to regain the credit they have advanced. I cannot for the life of me see how any definition such as is drawn in this Bill can be maintained in equity. An hon. Member opposite says: If you open the door to hereditaments such as this Amendment contemplates, where are you going? I should not mind where we go as long as the relief would be genuinely given to any undertaking that was of service to the community. The distinctions that are drawn will leave the Bill open to serious criticism, and destructive criticism, in the country. The question is asked Where the money is coming from? When I am asked a question like that, there is a ready answer which I am sure you, Sir, would rule out of order. We know where the money is to be found. I support the Amendment, not that I anticipate that we shall succeed in carry-
ing it, but that I hope this discussion will be noted in the country. Arbitrary distinctions like these must be drawn in a political expedient which is not on all fours with justice and equity, and the more you set to work your permanent officials to try to overcome difficulties of this kind, the more cumbersome will bathe White Papers they issue in their attempt to give directions as to what ought to happen under the control of the various governing bodies. Various people have been spoken of, such as the baker and the confectioner. I wonder where the funeral undertaker comes in. Is he a factory, or a production place, or what is he? In any case, he will be kept busy.

Miss LAWRENCE: When it comes to a question of what is easy or difficult to define, I am sometimes thrown into a state of bewilderment by hon. Members opposite. An hon. Member asked, "How can you pick out all these factories and workshops?" That is exactly what people said in 1840. Numerous definiti6ns have been made during more than half-a-century. More than that, there is a register of factories and workshops kept at the Home Office which is available for the purpose of any rating authority. When I hear hon. Members talk of the difficulty of defining factories and workshops, I do not know where I am, If there is one thing that has been hammered out in the course of industrial legislation for over half-a-century it is precisely the question of what and where is a factory or a workshop [Interruption.] I know that definition, and I know the definition of a workshop, of a domestic workshop, and of a non-textile factory. The point is that a register has been compiled, and it is a severely punishable offence to carry on a factory or a workshop without informing the Home Office. That objection is the most trifling that could possibly be made. There is nothing in it whatever. It is as easy to find out as looking for a telephone number in the Directory. Industry can stand burdens far better than it can stand dislocation and disturbance, and that is what is taking place. If you give relief to large establishments and refuse it to these little ones, you are not really penalising in many cases one man—

The CHAIRMAN: I do not quite follow the hon. Lady's argument. The purpose
of the Amendment is not to distinguish between large and small establishments, but between hereditaments which are solely used as factories and others which are partly used.

Miss LAWRENCE: It is the hereditaments that are used for both purposes which contain the small workshops. Take the boot trade. You have very large establishments doing wholesale boot making. You have in the West End of London small hereditaments where high-class bespoke work is done behind the shop. It is so also with the dressmaking trade. By discriminating in this way you penalise one branch of a trade at the expense of another. Take wholesale dressmaking. When I was young the bespoke dressmaking trade was very much bigger than it is now, and it was carried on at the back of retail shops. It is being pressed very much by the wholesale dressmaking trade, and it is holding its own with some difficulty. If you give rating relief to big wholesalers and not to little ones, you will penalise a distinct branch of the trade. It is exactly the same with boots. The best boots you buy in the West End are made in quite small places behind shops, and that trade is engaged in a death grapple with the wholesaler.

Mr. SANDEMAN: What does the hon. Lady pay for them?

Miss LAWRENCE: If the hon. Member is going to do any walking in the holidays, I am sure he will have the sense to get the hand-made article. Of course, you pay more for it, but you get a different thing and one suited to the idiosyncrasies of your individual feet. You are giving to one class of business a relief which you deny to people who are competing in the same market under slightly different conditions. You are unnecessarily throwing grit into the wheels of industry. You are favouring one class of business at the expense of their competitors. That runs through the whole of this scheme. We want persons engaged in the same sort of pursuit to be treated alike. You will upset trade and production very much more by pushing one business over the edge and favouring the other than by actually imposing a burden on them.

Mr. WARD LAW-MILNE: We are all agreed on the point the hon. Member is
raising. The point that is interesting is: If it is impossible to give it to all, would she not give it to the large industries in the manner proposed?

Miss LAWRENCE: I would treat them all fairly and share out this money equally among them. But, since you ask me the question, if there was an industry which was doing notoriously well, I would rather leave that industry out lock, stock and barrel. I would rather take away the money from the brewer, and give it to the baker if I had the money to spend in this way.

The CHAIRMAN: This is a matter to be dealt with later.

Miss LAWRENCE: I have finished now, and I will not trespass further upon the time of the Committee or upon the patience of the Chairman.

Sir WILLIAM PERRING: I certainly feel that the question which has been raised on this Amendment is one of substance. As far as I judge the question, the arguments that have been advanced up till now appear to suggest a distinction between a large industry and a small industry. I wish to submit to the Committee that it is a question between one large industry and another large industry, and one small industry and another small industry. The distinction is, that where a productive industry is carried on in conjunction with a retail distributive business, it is going to be treated entirely different from a productive business carried on apart from a distributive industry. That is where the line is drawn, and that is why I feel that it is a point of great substance. This question is agitating the minds not only of the Members of this House but the minds of a large number of people engaged in the distributive business all over the country. This Bill is really an enforcement Bill, but it is part of a great scheme, and has primarily been devised and submitted to this House for the purpose of promoting productive industry and providing some measure of relief in order to enable it better to compete with its rivals whether at home or abroad. I feel that while the argument of the baker and of the small tailor has, perhaps, been quite adequately submitted to the Committee, there are other people in trade who, perhaps, might have a little time spent on their claims
and their grievances. I know of a firm in the borough which I represent where at least 600 women are engaged in a dressmaking business, and it will be argued under this Bill this is primarily a distributive business because it has a very important frontage, very highly rated, in a most prominent thoroughfare and because the whole of the products which it sells are made on the premises. That is the case of a large industry as against another large industry.
There are large numbers of small industries, and I would emphasise the fact that reference has been made to small industries on the assumption that the pressure is going to penalise small industries as such. I do not see it in that light at all. This particular industry with which I am dealing at the moment is a large industry employing probably as many young people, middle-aged people, women and girls, as at least 10 to 20 dressmakers in Hanover Square. These are not residential premises, but they will be entitled as a productive industry to the benefits of this Bill. If that is not so, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us. That is how I read the Bill. If that is true, the small business in, say, Hanover Square, will he able to compete in some degree unfairly with much larger businesses in Paddington to-day. I know of other businesses in Paddington in my constituency which are productive industries and are manufacturing things for the purpose of distributing them among their large West End and Oxford Street establishments. They will enjoy the benefits of this relief under the Rating Bill. I feel that the issue has been raised as between the distributive trades carrying on productive industries and the industries which are purely and solely productive. You cannot get away from that fact. I want to proceed with the argument a little further. The very large firm to which I have referred has to compete with the Parisian firms, and I am quite sure that those who have drafted this Measure and this great comprehensive scheme had it in their minds that the English houses would be able favourably to compete with the Parisian houses. If that is so, why should they not have the relief, although they are a big industry with over 500 people, as against the smaller house?
I turn to the cabinet trade. In the East End of London there is a large number of small cabinet makers' shops behind what used to be dwelling-houses but which are no longer dwelling-houses. I have known them quite well for 30 or 40 years, and in fact I know them inside out. Many of these will be relieved under this Bill as a productive industry. There is a great distinction to be drawn between houses that "assemble" and "finish off" and those that manufacture. In the provinces many well-known distributive houses in the cabinet-making business have associated with their businesses a consider able productive side. They find it more convenient in the provinces to produce than by going, say, 50 or 60 miles to where mass production factories are situated. The people in the provinces like to have their cabinet-making and upholstery done on the premises. Because the hereditament in these cases is partly productive and partly distributive, they will not enjoy this relief. But if it were possible to put a brick wall between the two portions of the building—and I know something about assessment work, because I have been associated with it for 20 odd years—you would have two separate hereditaments and two separate assessments. One would receive the relief and the other would not. But if, owing to the circumstances of the construction of a building, the distributive house could not separate from the productive side of the business, it would be deprived of this relief, and therefore would have a grievance. It is desirable that in legislation of this kind we should avoid, as far as circumstances permit, any possibility of a grievance as between one taxpayer or ratepayer and another. It is for these reasons that I feel we are discussing a point of great substance.
I have an Amendment on the Order Paper later dealing with this question on the assumption that a line might be drawn where the hereditament and the net annual value were devoted to production as distinct from distribution. I am not wedded to my percentage. I put in 10 per cent. because the Minister has, in Clause 4, drawn the line at 10 per cent. in respect of industrial hereditaments where a side of the business is distributive, transport, etc. I would like the Minister to say, if he cannot
accept 10 per cent., or 30 per cent., that he will see that we adequately define the distinction. An hon. Friend said it was difficult to define what is a factory. I submit that a factory, whether identified with a distributing business or with a productive business, when it comes under the operations of the Factory and Workshop Acts is clearly defined. I submit that some distinction should be drawn as to the proportion of the hereditament that is devoted to the distributive business. I recognise that the Government cannot fritter away this £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 on every little small place which might have 5 per cent. of the premises devoted to the repairing of boots, and that to employ hundreds and thousands of officials to examine and measure these small hereditaments would be too costly—the burden on the local authorities out of all proportion to the benefits that would be derived—yet that argument cannot be applied to large hereditaments where there is a large proportion of the premises devoted to the productive business. Where a substantial portion of the hereditament is devoted to productive business, giving employment to a number of people, it should receive favourable consideration.
The primary object of this Bill is to find employment, to solve the unemployment problem, and while you will not promote employment by giving it to every little small place, still, when you get to 20 per cent. of the hereditament employing a large number of hands you have a case which should receive the careful consideration of the Government. The various assessment committees who will have to do this apportionment will find themselves in a dilemma, and there may be inequality as between one district and another. I know that these places will have to be measured and an assessment made on the various parts of the building, but where it is shown that a substantial proportion of the hereditament is devoted to productive business it should get the relief of the Bill.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: I want to add a few words to the forcible appeal which has been made by the hon. Member for North Paddington (Sir W. Perring). I am not asking that the whole scheme of the Bill should be altered. All we are asking in this
Amendment is that the Government in bringing forward this Bill shall be true to their own scheme, because if they are really going to say that they cannot separate the productive part of these industries in whose interests this Amendment is brought forward, they are really confessing the failure of their own scheme. The argument advanced against them in the first place was that it was difficult in the nature of things to disentangle productive industry from the whole body of industry in the country and now, by resisting the Amendment, the Government are confessing that they cannot disentangle productive industry from the rest of industry. The Government, if they cannot follow up a sound scheme, should at least try to get the real benefits of their own scheme.
The object of their own scheme. I understand, is to help production and to increase employment. If they are going to do that, if they are going to succeed in that project, I say good luck to them, but they will not deserve that good luck unless they pursue it earnestly and consistently. To do that they have to search out production wherever it is found and not select those places merely where production is obvious and where production is the whole business, but wherever they find productive industry being carried on to recognise it and say, "Here is an activity which we started out to benefit, and here our benefit is to be given." Particular instances have been quoted of industries which will be unfairly treated under the proposals, if the Amendment is not accepted. I am dealing with the general principle. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer really believes, if the Government really believes, that the right way to tackle this problem is to tackle productive industry they should with an honest consistency not take one productive industry here and leave another one out but follow out production wherever they can find it and distribute their benefits in the way they intend.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: In supporting the Amendment I should like to draw attention to certain anomalies in the boot and shoe trade, which I hope will show the need for some Amendment of this sort. I was in my constituency, Northampton, during the week-end. It is famous all over the world as one of the
greatest boot centres, and I confess that I did not find any remarkable enthusiasm for this Bill. The speech of the hon. Member for North Paddington (Sir W. Perrine) adds increased force to the remarks of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton), that as the Bill is more known in the country there will be widespread opposition to it. Every day we receive protests from this or that section of the community. Only this morning I received a letter from the Northampton Master Bakers and Confectioners protesting against the Bill, and I have no doubt the Minister of Health has received a copy as well. I have also received a protest from the Northampton Federation of Merchant Tailors. They say:
I am requested by the members of the above federation to protest in the strongest possible manner against the proposals in the Rating and Valuation Bill. They are invidious towards the bespoke tailor and place him in an unfair position as compared with the large producer. If the Bill is passed it will place a very heavy handicap on bespoke tailors, and in many instances may mean that they will be unable to carry on.
There is also the important question of the bespoke boot manufacturer. This Bill penalises the small boot man as compared with the large manufacturer. The small man, struggling in a small way, working in his own house or back yard, gets no relief at all. The Minister of Health said "let the small man rip. We must help the big man." How is that going to help the small man? There is one question of discrimination in regard to the boot trade which arises in my own constituency. Some of the boot factories have expanded since they were built and have erected accommodation outside the factory to store their leather and surplus goods. On the other hand, other factories, not so successful, have found ample accommodation inside their own factory to store all the necessary impedimenta connected with their business. There is a discrimination here between two manufacturers of the same size in the same industry; those whose warehouses are outside the bounds of their factories and those whose warehouses are inside. The right hon. Gentleman said that the thing to do is to help the big manufacturers. Let me point out what the help amounts to in the boot industry. The President of the Board of Trade in reply
to a question said that the amount of assistance to the leather boot and shoe trade, would be approximately £800,000 a year. If we take the 1924 census of production, the boot and shoe industry produced £55,000,000 worth of boots and shoes, and the leather industry, £33,000,000 worth. If we include all the other articles mentioned in the reply of the President of the Board of Trade, clothes, harness, etc., the combined figure would come to £190,000,000. What does that mean in relief of boots and shoes? It means that for a 21s. pair of boots or shoes the relief will be exactly 96 of one penny.

The CHAIRMAN: How does the hon. Member connect his argument with the question of the division of hereditaments, which we are now discussing?

Mr. MALONE: On the comparison which the Minister made in his reply before you took the Chair, in which he pointed out that it was desirable to spread the benefit over all the large factories and to allow the small factories to rip. I am pointing out that this proposal conveys no benefit even to the big manufacturers, because the benefit only amounts to 96 of a penny for a 21s. pair of boots.

Sir K. WOOD: The argument to which I shall address myself and to which no one has yet given any reply—

Mr. E. BROWN: I have replied.

Sir K. WOOD: My argument is that the counter-proposals to the Government proposal would mean such a dissipation of the relief in the sum available that the people we desire to help would not benefit, and that it is better to use the money for the purposes indicated by the Government so that not only the big people but the small people would benefit.

Mr. MALONE: I accept that explanation, but my point is that not only are the small people not benefiting but that even the big people are not benefiting, because under this scheme the benefit in respect of a 21s. pair of boots or shoes will be less than one penny.

The CHAIRMAN: The point is whether that boot will get a halfpenny benefit or a penny benefit or more if it is in a
divided hereditament or in one hereditament. The hon. Member seems to be arguing at large.

Mr. MALONE: It may get part of a penny if the Minister would accept the Amendment, although the Amendment would not go far enough. The point I was raising was that even if the benefit were doubled, that is not the question with which we are concerned. We are concerned with a much bigger question. The depression in trade is not merely a question whether people can afford to buy boots at 20s. 11d. or at 21s. It is a question that in big areas in South Wales, in Lancashire, in the shipbuilding and in the mining areas they cannot afford to buy boots.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member does not seem to appreciate the question. It is that where a business is partly productive and partly distributive the part that is productive shall be separated from the rest, and relieved. That is the sole question before the Committee.

Mr. MALONE: I thank you. If there is any further explanation that I can get from the Minister, I shall take the opportunity at a further stage.

Mr. HARDIE: Can the Minister help us by a definition? Take the trade of a boot repairer who does not buy boots for sale. Can a boot repairer's shop be called a retail place under this Clause 1 If his premises cannot be described as a retail place of business, and since it cannot be a wholesale place of business, can we have some definition as to where the boot repairer would come? In this Clause and in relation to this Amendment we notice that
'Retail shop' includes any premises of a similar character where retail trade or business (including repair work) is carried on.
Is that to apply to an engineering repair works as well as to a boot repairing shop or to the repairing of clothes or the repairing of anything? Is there any definition which deals with the case of a man who is not buying boots to sell them again?
Mention has been made of the effect upon handicrafts. If this Clause becomes law as it stands, handicrafts will almost disappear. It would be a great pity if we lose the handicrafts that are asso-
ciated with many towns. In nearly every town with which I am acquainted there are various forms of handicraft, and there is no town with a greater variety of handicraft than Birmingham. I should have thought that the Minister of Health would have had some consideration for the protection of the arts and crafts. As Socialists, we have been accused that we want to stamp out everything according to the same pattern. Your hats, your boots, your clothes are to be of the same pattern and colour, but here is the bluest of blue Tories, from Birmingham, wanting to put us into the position under this Bill of everything going under for the benefit of the big stamping machine. He is taking steps to crush out all that is left of the handicrafts which are competing against this huge stamping machine. He wants to make things all alike, and yet he will pose at the next General Election as being an anti-Socialist, on the ground that Socialism would make everything of one stamp, one colour, one size and one shape. What it to be gained by giving to a big industry something which it does not require? That method will increase the poverty of the others and by increasing the poverty of the others we shall bring about a greater financial strain and a tendency to increase unemployment. The whole of this Debate depends on a definition of the word "primarily."

The CHAIRMAN: That is another Amendment.

Mr. HARDIE: I know that it is another Amendment, but everything in connection with this Amendment depends upon a definition of the word "primarily."

The CHAIRMAN: The question before the Committee is the division of a composite hereditament. The question of its being mainly productive or otherwise comes later.

Mr. HARDIE: We cannot understand this Amendment until we have a definition of the word "primarily."

Mr. HARRIS: I am glad that the Minister of Health is back in his place. I wish he had heard the very excellent speech made by the hon. Member for North Paddington (Sir W. Perring). No one more thoroughly understands the association of the distributive and pro-
ductive industries than the hon. Member who has had practical experience for many years and has been President of the Chamber of Trade. He made a division, which was rather unfortunate, between the big and the small industries, leaving us rather to think that it was even more important to have these words, "or that part thereof," applied to the big industry and not to the small industry.

Sir W. PERRING: It covers both.

Mr. HARRIS: I think the hon. Member was wrong in his argument, because the big retail shop can afford to move their productive side to a separate factory. Undoubtedly if these words are not introduced, that would happen. Large shopkeepers like Selfridge's, Whiteley's and Barker's will open factories right away from their shops, and will get the full advantage of this provision, but when you come to the small shopkeepers, the man of small capital who is able to pay only a very small rent, it will be found that it is impossible for him to make any special provision of that kind. When this Bill was introduced, I straight away visualised my own constituency, as no doubt many others have done. I pictured myself in the Bethnal Green Road. I would like to take the Minister of Health there. It is a street only about one mile in length. There the right hon. Gentleman would see in miniature the industry of the country. I would start at the Shoreditch end, where there are clothing factories. They have a shop-window where clothing is sold to the public and to the trade. But the building is at the same time producing on the upper floors its supplies of clothing. Then I would go to the gramophone works, to a shop where they sell gramophones, a distributive business for selling not only their own makes but other makes of gramophones. At the back of the shop they are producing the article, making the cabinets and putting together the machine.

Mr. THURTLE: And very good gramophones too.

Mr. HARRIS: Yes, and very good gramophones too, as my hon. Friend said. They would reproduce the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman with great effect. There are also two or three milliners who supply ladies with charming hats, but in the same building produce and manufac-
ture hats throughout. A little further away is a cabinet industry where furniture is made, and the middleman's profit saved by distributing furniture direct. All these are very small people who do not make a big living but are producing goods and giving employment to the workers of our own country. Our rates in Bethnal Green are 22s. in the pound, almost the highest in London, not because of extravagance on the part of the local authority, but largely because of the low assessable value. It is very hard that these people, who have to eke out a living by combining two phases of industry, production and distribution, should be specially penalised when it is possible to devise words—as has been done by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) by using his knowledge of Parliamentary draftsmanship—to get over the difficulty.
Earlier in our Debates the Minister of Health met me on several points by stating that, however desirable my Amendment might be, the words I had submitted would not serve the particular purpose in view. Here you have words that would achieve the purpose and would mean that the small man, the producer and manufacturer who has had a great struggle to make both ends meet, would get the advantage of this Bill. If words of this kind are not inserted in the Bill, the large manufacturer, as opposed to the small one, will get all the advantage from the Bill. In my own borough the only two manufacturers—I can give the Minister the names—who will get any real benefit from this relief are two big breweries, which are already very prosperous and paying big dividends. I think the Minister ought to be prepared to accept a reasonable Amendment of this kind. Or is he not going to accept any Amendments, however well-devised they are? Does he want to Report this Bill unamended, so as to escape the Report stage? If so, we ought to know, and we need not waste our time. If we are not to get any Amendments accepted, it is no use speaking and trying to make this a reasonable and just Bill rather than a Measure which would to a large extent benefit the prosperous and give no advantage to the weak and struggling.

9.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I beg the Minister to reconsider his decision.
We are told that it is impossible to distinguish between prosperous and unprosperous industries, but in this case there certainly is a distinction made in favour of the prosperous. Take an industry like the baking trade. You have a large shop with its bakery separated from the shop premises. That gets relief. There is the small baker's shop of the county town, with ovens attached to the shop, and it gets no relief. That is obviously unfair. I appeal to the Minister to readjust the Bill so as to meet such a case. I would like to see him accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for North Paddington (Sir W. Perring). It has been suggested that 10 per cent. might be too small. I think it might be too big.

Mr. BRIANT: There are many factories which supply shops in which goods are retailed. There are also large manufactures of quite a different category. There are those that belong to huge firms which have no shop attached whatever, and in some cases do not even deliver to shops, but yet have a huge retail business. Obviously, if they have this retail business they will be competing quite unfairly with the small man. They are both makers and retailers, and yet have no shop. It is impossible for human ingenuity in any circumstances to separate what portion belongs to each. I would mention the great Arsenal Cooperative Stores. They make very excellent bread, and are a very excellent institution. They have a huge factory, which may supply some shops, but there is an enormous retail business in the streets. Obviously it is unfair to the small baker, who is occupying the same position as the Arsenal Co-operative Stores, if he does not get the same relief in rates as that huge co-operative concern or any other big concern will obtain. The matter is not at all clear in the Bill. In fact, nothing is clear in this Bill, and we shall be faced in the future with all manner of problems to which I do not think anyone will find a solution. Will the huge co-operative societies and the firms who manufacture bread on a large scale, obtain the full de-rating granted by the Bill? If so, it is obvious that the small man will suffer a dis-
ability which, I think, even the proprietors of these big concerns would not wish him to suffer.

Mr. BROAD: Those who have sat through the Debate on this Amendment will feel that it is due to the Committee that something more should be said on behalf of the Government, in reply to the arguments advanced in favour of the Amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary shuffled out of the difficulty by making a Second Reading speech which had nothing to do with the Amendment and which has tempted other Members to break the rules and to call for the direction of the Chair. This is a very serious matter to a number of struggling people in this country. Many of the finest businesses have been begun by small men who carried on their work in their dwelling houses and sold the goods they produced. The constituency which the Minister now represents—but which he will not represent after the next General Election—is the home of the small industry and the right hon. Gentleman knows that very small industries have been the foundations of some of the biggest concerns in the country. One could understand some discrimination between the prosperous and the non-prosperous industries, not discrimination between the small man and the big concern.
The Government proposal would discriminate against the hundreds of confectioners in London who produce and sell their goods on the premises where they live. They are not to be relieved, but a great concern like Lyons is to be relieved of three-quarters of its rates. That is grossly unfair, and leads one to think that this Bill has been conceived by directors and shareholders of big firms who do not care about the small man—who indeed are more concerned to crush out the small man. I am not one to stand for the old garret system of production. I am glad that it is fast becoming a thing of the past; but even if we do not approve of that old system, with all its faults, it is not fair to stab the smaller businesses in the back by relieving their great competitors and not relieving them. In every business to-day one finds that the highest class of work, the produce of the skilled craftsman, is constantly being encroached upon by the factory-produced article. In the clothing
business alone in London, you will still find a large number of real craftsmen producing men's clothing, but they are being more and more crushed out as factory production is improving. There are many such businesses, where craftsmen still pride themselves on their skill and can still carry on, but they will be crushed out if this relief is given to the big factories. Even the undertaker who manufactures coffins on his premises is being cut out by factory-made coffins. Hon. Members opposite say they believe in competition, but this Government have been trying in every direction to help monopolies.
This provision amounts to putting peas in the boots of the small man who has to run against the big firm. It is an unfair proposal and, if nothing else will persuade the Minister to drop it, he ought to consider that he and his party are in for a very tight time at the next General Election if they proceed with it. I can imagine that in my own constituency, every baker's shop would be a committee room in support of my candidature. I hope that consideration will appeal to the Government because I would not like to see them plunged blindly into disaster and, certainly, even to gain a political advantage, I would not like to see many small firms who are on the brink to-day, being forced into ruin. We do not desire to march to victory on such a point. We wish to see these people getting a fair chance, and I hope the Minister will amend the Bill so as to do justice between the small man and the big firm.

Mr. MORRIS: I also ask the Minister to accept the Amendment. On turning to the Clause I find that the word used is "occupied," and the word "occupied" occurs in the proviso to the Clause. The Minister is resisting the Amendment on the ground of the difficulty of apportioning the rateable value, as between the productive part and the distributive part of premises. It is clear from the Clause that even the small producer and retailer can get the productive part of his premises de-rated if he does one thing. Instead of leasing or renting the premises as a whole, he can obtain from the landlord a separate agreement with regard to the productive part of the premises and another agreement in respect of the dis-
tributive part. That would constitute separate occupation of the productive part, and he would then be entitled to relief under this Clause. No structural alteration would be required. The objection to that course is that there might be a deal with the landlord that in consideration of the new agreement, a higher rent should be paid for the productive part. The landlord would be able to exact a higher rent because the small producer could only get the benefit of the de-rating proposals by meeting him in that way.
That is one case where the landlord would benefit. On the other hand, if the landlord and the small producer were on good terms, the landlord might give the new agreement without any increase; but if they were on bad terms, he might refuse the concession altogether. Thus, whether the small producer became entitled to the de-rating privileges or not would depend on the caprice of the landlord. The most satisfactory solution for all concerned would be to accept the Amendment with all its defects. Decisions are being given already in regard to the Rent Restriction Acts, that even rooms let in the same house by the same landlord to the same tenant, constitute separate occupation if they are rented separately, and I imagine those decisions will apply in connection with the interpretation of this Clause. Having regard to all these considerations, I would ask the Minister to accept the Amendment as a way out of the difficulty.

Mr. GEORGE THORNE: This is a very vital matter. Everyone must recognise that it is one of the most important issues that will arise in the course of these Debates, but we have not heard a single word in regard to this Amendment from the Minister in charge of the Bill. We have certainly heard something from the Parliamentary Secretary, and his was the only speech in favour of the proposal. I have been here through nearly the whole Debate, and I have heard three Members who support the Government criticise the Bill, and in effect support the Amendment. The only Member who has spoken in favour of the proposal is the Parliamentary Secretary. The benches behind him are for the most part empty, and the Members of the Conservative party will be able
to absolve their consciences when they go into the Lobby because they have not heard the discussion, and know nothing of what it is about. This point will be brought home to them in the country. It will not hurt us on this side, but those on the other side of the House will discover what it means that a matter so vitally affecting the welfare of the country should be carried through with no other Member but the Parliamentary Secretary supporting it, and the Minister in charge of the Bill absolutely silent.

Mr. THURTLE: Are we not to have some indication of the mind of the Minister on this matter? It is not as though the point has been pressed merely from one party. Pressure has been applied from all parts of the House, and particularly from the Minister's own supporters, and he ought to tell us whether we might look forward to any concession on this point, either now or at some later stage of the Bill.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should be very sorry if I thought that silence on my part on such an important question were to be interpreted as discourtesy or want of courtesy towards Members of the Committee. If I did not rise before, it was because, as far as I could see, no fresh points had been raised in the course of the Debate. I have been absent during the greater part of the Debate on this particular Clause, and if, therefore, in the few observations which I want to make, I merely repeat the arguments that have been used by my right hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "He did not use any!"]—I hope that hon. Members will extend to me their indulgence. I do not in any way complain because some hon. Members have used this particular Amendment to exploit certain party cries. It would be too much to expect, perhaps, that hon. Members opposite should not try to get any advantage which they may think it is possible for them to obtain from representing one particular point of view. I do not want to take up these party points in replying, or to treat this matter in a party spirit at all—at any rate, on this particular occasion, because I recognise that this is one of those cases where you can make on paper, and I daresay to the satisfaction of hon. Members, a very good case for the point
of view which has been put forward by hon. Members opposite, and by hon. Friends behind me. I ask the Committee not to lose sight of the broad general issue which lies at the bottom of the whole procedure outlined in this Bill. There are one or two things that must be borne in mind in considering the proportion and perspective of an Amendment of this kind.
It must not be assumed that the resources of the Exchequer are unlimited. It is all very well to say, "Extend your reliefs still further in this direction and in that"; there are a great number of Amendments on the Paper which would have that effect, and which would, by giving further relief, incidentally pile up the liability of the Exchequer to make good the deficiency of the local authorities. But although my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has been very anxious that want of resources on the part of the Exchequer should not stand in the way of the objects which he has set himself to achieve in this Measure—and even he has already considerably extended his original ideas-he cannot go beyond a certain point. Therefore, one matter which the Committee must always bear in mind is that there is only a limited amount of money at our disposal, and that the question which we have to keep before us is how that money can best be applied so as to bring about the objects we have in view. What are the objects we have in view? They are to stimulate industry so as to give rise to further employment. [An HON. MEMBER: "In brewing?"] I remember that the Liberal party even in their proposals admitted that certain brewers would benefit, because they are in what are known as necessitous areas.

The CHAIRMAN: I have stopped more than one hon. Member who was departing from the question of the composite hereditament.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I was led away from the thread of my argument by the interruption. Our object is to increase and stimulate employment throughout the country, and we have to consider, in the question as to the quarters to which our relief should be extended, whether in fact by giving relief in those quarters we are or are not going to stimulate employment. Judged by that test, it is obvious that a
place where employés are at work, if it is given some relief from rating, may expect to increase its employment and to give rise, therefore, to further opportunities for people to find work, But you are not going to get an increase of employment if you give a small—and it will be very email—amount of relief to an individual who is carrying on some minor process in the back room of his house. It may be of some advantage to him, and a desire on his part, that he should get relief where he can from his rates, but nobody can say, looking at it from the broad aspect of our proposals, that relief of that kind will achieve what we are trying to do. Therefore, the question to which we have to address ourselves is this. If we give relief to the factories, and if we refuse relief to those cases where the primary business is not one of production but of distribution, or some other purpose which is not that of a, factory or workshop, shall we seriously penalise the small man? Shall we put him to such a serious disadvantage that he will be driven out of business? If I thought that, I could not possibly maintain the position which is laid down in the Bill.
Several hon. Members have illustrated their arguments by the case of Birmingham. They said that Birmingham is a great city of the old handicrafts, and there in Birmingham you will find a great many persons who are beginning in a very small way what may ultimately prove to be a great, prosperous career. It is quite true that Birmingham has always been the city of the small manufacturers. We are proud of it, and I venture to say that the small manufacturer in Birmingham, in spite of the extraordinary advantages which are possessed by the roan who is producing on a large scale, and who is able to use the very latest kinds of machinery and labour-saving devices, has been able to hold his own against the competition of the great manufacturers. Why? Because it is not merely a question of the price of the article. There are other things which enter into it. There are the actual characteristics of the article itself, its originality, and its workmanship, and there are such qualities as the personal attention given by the small man to his client when he sets up a little clientele of his own. The big manufacturer is too big to bother with that. He has to do everything on a wholesale scale and so, quite outside the
range of the large manufacturer, there is still a field for the small man which is filled by him Are we going to destroy that by these proposals? I cannot see how that; can possibly be the case. After all, we must remember that in any process, the machinery, under the Eating and Valuation Act, is exempted from rating, so that the actual increase in the valuation of a dwelling-house by reason of the fact that some small amount of productive industry is going on, is very small, and in some cases probably it hardly exists at all.
Therefore, even if we grant that it is a practical proposition to examine every one of these dwelling-houses and to separate from the rest the dwelling-house which has a particular room or rooms in which this small amount of productive industry is going on, I say that the actual relief which would accrue to the occupier of that hereditament would be so small as hardly to count. Whatever the rates are, even in a case like Bethnal Green, I do not believe it will be found that the increase in assessments is sufficient to make any material difference.

Mr. THURTLE: What about the shed or factory in the garden? I want the Minister to explain whether that it not a very considerable matter. There is a hereditament consisting of a dwelling-house, and in the garden attached to it there is cither a factory or workshop. The possibility is that, being a dwelling-house with garden attached, it will not be considered as a place which is primarily a place where a productive industry is established, and that it will be considered as a dwelling-house, and therefore it is very probable the workshop or factory in the garden will get no concession at all. What I want to know is, why should not that factory or shed in the garden get some concession?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It seems rather a far-fetched illustration. [An HON. MEMBER: "There are hundreds of them!"] What, considerable factories in gardens?

Mr. HARRIS: Hundreds.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If it really is a considerable factory, it will be rated as a separate hereditament and will get relief. I do not think that is a typical case of the position which has given rise to the
Amendment we are discussing. The ease which hon. Members have been pressing for consideration is that of the dwelling-house in which there is a room or rooms which are being used for productive purposes. There is every gradation between what is, say, a bakery and the baking of a few loaves in a back room. Take the case of the baker. I quite admit that a bakery is, perhaps, one of the most difficult businesses to argue from my point of view, but even in that case, I am not at all prepared to admit that the competitor of the small baker is the great cooperative baker or the big factory in which baking is carried on on a large scale. I doubt very much whether that is the case. I am not going to be so dogmatic as to say there is no such competition at all, but my own impression is that the bulk of the competition is between one small baker and another small baker, and not the big factories. Again, this is an instance of what I was saying when I was speaking about crafts in Birmingham. The small bakers' customers are customers whom he retains as personal to himself. He makes it his business by particular attention to the individual wants of his customers. The question whether they should go to him or to the co-operative bakeries is not merely a question of the loaf but of the services that are given.

Miss WILKINSON: Might I ask the Minister a question? If you take such a business as a fish and chip shop, does

that count as, or is it regarded as, a productive business?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not profess to set myself up in the place of a rating authority or assessment committee, but, on the face of it, I do not see how a fish and chip shop can possibly be regarded as a productive industry. I have frankly stated that this is a question on which I can understand there may be honest, sincere and fair difference of opinion. All I can say is that I have approached this matter with the responsibility of one who has got to suffer if things do not work out in the way he expects they will. I accept that responsibility, and am prepared to take it on my own shoulders. Having gone into it myself with a real desire to see whether the main object in the Bill could be achieved, and at the same time this concession could be given, and whether if this concession were not given the small people would really be so seriously prejudiced as to be in danger of being driven out of business, I have come to the conclusion that this aspect is not one which is likely to have any very serious or injurious effects. Having given it the best consideration of which I am capable, I feel that the proposal in the Bill is one which I ought to ask this Committee to accept.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 139; Noes, 216.

Division No. 225.]
AYES.
[9.35 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Harris, Percy A.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Day, Harry
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillabre')
Dennison, R.
Hayday, Arthur


Attlee, Clement Richard
Duncan, C.
Hayes, John Henry


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Dunnico, H.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Barnes, A.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Hirst, G. H.


Barr, J.
England, Colonel A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Batey, Joseph
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Bondfield, Margaret
Forrest, W.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gardner, J. P.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Briant, Frank
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Broad, F. A.
Gibbins, Joseph
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)


Bromfield, William
Gosling, Harry
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Bromley, J.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Greenall, T.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Kelly, W. T.


Buchanan, G.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Kennedy, T.


Cape, Thomas
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Kenworthy, Lt. Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Charleton, H. C.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lansbury, George


Cluse, W. S.
Greves, T.
Lawrence, Susan


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Grundy, T. W.
Lee, F.


Connolly, M.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Lindley, F. W.


Cove, W. G.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lowth, T.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities
Hardie, George D.
Lunn, William


Crawfurd, H. E.
Harney, E. A.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Ab'ravon)


MacLaren, Andrew
Scurr, John
Tinker, John Joseph


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Sexton, James
Tomlinson, R. P.


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Townend, A. E.


March, S.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Varley, Frank B.


Morris, B. H.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Viant, S. P.


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Shinwell, E.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Naylor, T. E.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Oliver, George Harold
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Wellock, Wilfred


Palin, John Henry
Sitch, Charles H.
Wheatley, fit. Hon. J.


Paling, W.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Wiggins, William Martin


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Potts, John S.
Snell, Harry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Rees, Sir Beddoe
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Stamford, T. W.
Windsor, Walter


Riley, Ben
Stephen, Campbell
Wright, W.


Ritson, J.
Stewart, I. (St. Rollox)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Sutton, J. E.



Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Runolman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ivee)
Thorns, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Sir Robert Hutchison and Sir Robert Hamilton.


Saklatvala, Shapurji
Thorns, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)



Scrymgeour, E.
Thurtle, Ernest



NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Jephcott, A. R.


Albery, Irving James
Dawson, Sir Philip
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Dixey, A. C.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Drewe, C.
Lamb, J. Q.


Apsley, Lord
Eden, Captain Anthony
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Atkinson, C.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Ellis, R. G.
Looker, Herbert William


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Bennett, A. J.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Bethel, A.
Everard, W. Lindsay
McLean, Major A.


Bevan, S. J.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipten)
Faile, Sir Bertram G.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Blundell, F. N.
Fermoy, Lord
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Fielden, E, B.
Malone, Major P. B.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Finburgh, S.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Brass, Captain W.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Margesson, Capt. D.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Meller, R. J.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Briggs, J. Harold
Fraser, Captain fan
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Briscoe, Richard George
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Gates, Percy
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Bullock, Captain M.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Burman, J. B.
Goff, Sir Park
Newman, Sir H. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Gowar, Sir Robert
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Campbell, E. T.
Grace, John
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Cassels, J. D.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Nield, Ht. Hon. Sir Herbert


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Grant, Sir J. A.
Nuttall, Ellis


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Oakley, T.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Penny, Frederick George


Chapman, Sir S.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Hacking, Douglas H.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Christie, J. A.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hall, Capt. W. D. A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hamilton, Sir George
Pllcher, G.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hammersley, S. S.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Harland, A.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Harrison, G. J. C.
Preston, William


Colman, N. C. D.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Raine, Sir Walter


Cooper, A. Duff
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxford, Henley)
Rawsnn, Sir Cooper


Cope, Major Sir William
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Couper, J. B.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur p.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Ropner, Major L.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hudson, Capt. A U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindeey, Gainsbro)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sandon, Lord


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Iveagh, Countess of
Savery, S. S.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen't)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W.)


Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Tasker, R. Inigo.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Sheppereon, E. W.
Templeton, W. P.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Wells, S. R.


Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Smithers, Waldron
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Vaughan, Morgan, Col. K. P.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Sprot, Sir Alexander
Waddington, R.
Withers, John James


Stanley, Lieut-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Storry-Deans, R.
Warrender, Sir Victor



Streatfelld, Captain S. R.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Major Sir George Hennessy and Captain Viscount Curzon.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I beg to move, in page 3, line 9, to leave out the words "and used."
I wish to know what the Minister intends to convey by these words "and used" in the Clause? Does he mean that every house, every hereditament, everything surrounding a mine, and the mine itself will be rated separately, because if that be so the Minister is doing a very grave injustice. I must argue my case on the assumption that he intends that all the different operations in and around the mine are to be rated separately. If a mine is temporarily closed, no rates are paid at all, but apparently, by this Clause, the Minister means that all these other hereditaments are to be rated separately in that case. For what purpose? Mines at present are not rated on the same basis as ordinary hereditaments. They are rated on the amount of coal produced, and I think that is the only fair way in which they can be rated. Take the case of two pits which employ the same number of men. It does not follow that they produce the same amount of coal. In one case nature has been kind and in another case very unkind, and the output of one pit may be double that of the other. In moving this Amendment, I am assuming that the engine, the shafts, the screens for cleaning the coal, and all that sort of thing are to be rated separately, and I cannot understand how the Minister is to deal fairly as between one mine and another by such a process. I would also point out that parts of the machinery may be stopped for a month or three months. Are they to be de-rated because they are not in use?
The point is that you cannot use a mine for anything else. You cannot very well make a linen store of a mine, or use it as a refreshment room; it would not even make a dance hall, because people would look very ugly attempting to dance in
a 3 feet seam. I suggest to the Minister that so far as mines are concerned these words "and used" are of no value whatever, and ought to be taken out of the Clause. With all my long experience of mines I cannot find any use at all for them. Does the Minister think that these hereditaments can be used for some other purpose if the mine be stopped? If a mine is abandoned it is not rated at all, it goes off the rating book; but it may be temporarily stopped, and apparently, in that case, some of these hereditaments may now be rated. The owners have got to pay rent for the shaft. If the rent has to be paid, have any rates to be paid by the people who receive the rent for the shaft? I shall be very much interested to know what the Minister has in mind and what he regards as part of the mine. Does he regard the coal in the mine as part of the mine? If he does, then is the man who owns the coal and receives 6d. or 8d. a ton when the pit is working to pay his share of the rates on the pit? I would like the Minister to give an answer to these points, so that we may know exactly where we are, but I repeat that in all my experience I cannot find any use for these words "and used," and I move to delete them.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As far as I can understand the hon. Member, he has omitted to notice that these words would apply, not only to a mine, but also to a factory or workshop, and, however unnecessary they may appear to be in regard to a mine, he will, I think, agree that they would be necessary as regards a factory or a workshop. As regards a mine, I do not think the hon. Member need be under any apprehension, if he is under an apprehension, because, if the mine stopped, it would not, of course, pay any rates at all, while, if it were producing but not at its full capacity, the rating, as he is no doubt aware, is in proportion to the output of the mine.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Although a mine may toe stopped, and may not be producing any coal at all, nevertheless work may be going on in it, such as drifting and things of that kind. What would be the position then?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Seeing that the rating of a colliery is dependent upon its output, if there is no output there will be no rating, and, consequently, the hon. Member need not fear any untoward result from the use of these words.

Mr. ROBERT WILSON: I should like to put another point of view with regard to the word "used." There are industries which are quite different from the mining industry in that they have rates to pay even when they are not working. I am thinking of the large shipyards on the Tyne, the Wear, the Tees and at other great shipbuilding centres. They are occupied as shipyards, but at the moment are temporarily closed down, and, therefore, are not being used as shipyards. What would be the position in regard to such an industry? Would it not have been better to have some such words as "occupied and ordinarily used," so as to protect such places as shipyards.

Miss LAWRENCE: Suppose that a glasshouse was closed down and, although not being used, was still paying very heavy rates. The question whether such an industry shuts down or reopens very often depends on quite small factors, and I do not think it is reasonable that factory premises where it may not have been possible to start work at the moment should not receive any rate relief. Those are just the cases where very small factors may just turn the scale between employment and no employment. The case in which a building, although occupied as a factory, is not being used, is precisely the case of all others which needs relief. A building which is devoted to industrial purposes and is not used for any other purpose, but which, owing to hard times, has had to shut down, is precisely one Of those cases where relief is needed. Of course, if the building were entirely turned over to some other purpose, it would not be right to claim relief for it, but that would be sufficiently safeguarded by retaining the word "occupied." We desire the word "used" to be taken out in order
to meet those cases in necessitous areas where factories have been temporarily closed down.

Mr. KELLY: I am wondering why the right hon. Gentleman requires these two words in the Bill. He tells us that when a mine is not working rates are not demanded, but, if that be the case, what is the motive behind these two words which have been put in the Bill? I think the Minister in his explanation has kept a good deal back. I think of the tin-mines in Cornwall, where I suppose it would be possible to prove that while they were occupied as tin-mines they were not being "used." In this Clause I can see a wonderful time for the lawyers. I notice some hon. Members opposite who are lawyers smiling over these two words. It seems to me that they will be a wonderful present to the lawyers. Certainly, the hon. and learned Member for Gillingham (Sir G. Hohler) is enjoying himself now, and no doubt he thinks that these two words "and used" are not very lean but very fat words, and I think that will be proved when the lawyers have had a chance of working this Clause. Many of the tinmines in Cornwall have been held up because at the present time the market does not suit those who own particular mines, and they are waiting for what they call a better time in order to obtain bigger profits. I have been wondering what is meant by these two words "and used." I certainly cannot see any necessity for them being inserted in the Bill.

Sir K. WOOD: A rather important part of the Government scheme is contained in these particular words. The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Robert Wilson) has suggested the two words "ordinarily used." I think those words would please the lawyers. I would like to assure hon. Members that there is no sinister meaning behind these words. In the casts which have been mentioned, the assessment would have to be taken into account, and they would be assessed accordingly. That is the real remedy for the cases which have been enumerated by hon. Members opposite. In cases where mines have been closed, the proper remedy is to apply to the assessment committee under the ordinary law. So far as the Government proposal is concerned, what we desire to do is to help production, and directly the works
which have been referred to are able to start again then our scheme comes into operation. That is what the tinmines and any other industry which is affected will be able to take into account, because under our scheme they will receive considerable relief. The Ministry have received deputations on this question, and sooner or later all

these matters will be taken into account, and no doubt they will help to a considerable extent the industries which have closed down to start again. Obviously, these words must be included in the Bill.

Question put, "That the words 'and used' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 116.

Division No. 226.]
AYES.
[10.0 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Iveagh, Countess of


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Albery, Irving James
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Jephcott, A. R.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Dixey, A. C.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Drewe, C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Kennedy A. R. (Preston)


Apsley, Lord
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Atholl, Duchess of
Elliott, Major Walter E.
Lamb, J. Q.


Atkinson, C.
Ellis, R. G.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
England, Colonel A.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Looker, Herbert William


Bennett, A. J.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Bethel, A.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Bevan, S. J.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
McLean, Major A.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Blundell, F. N.
Fermoy, Lord
Mac Robert, Alexander M.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Fielden, E. B.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Finburgh, S.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Malone, Major P. B.


Brass, Captain W.
Forrest, W.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Margesson, Captain D.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Meller, R. J.


Briggs, J. Harold
Fraser, Captain Ian
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.


Briscoe, Richard George
Fremantie, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Gates, Percy
Morris, R. H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berxt, Newb'y)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Bullock, Captain M.
Goff, Sir Park
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Burman, J. B.
Gower, Sir Robert
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Grace, John
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Campbell, E. T.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Cassels, J. D.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Nuttall, Ellis


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Oakley, T.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (As'on)
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Penny, Frederick George


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Chapman, Sir S.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Hacking, Douglas H.
Perring, Sir William George


Christie, J. A.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hail, Capt. W. D. A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hamilton, Sir George
Pilcher, G.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hammersley, S. S.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Harland, A.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Colfox, Major Wm. Philip
Harrison, G. J. C.
Preston, William


Colman, N. C. D.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Raine, Sir Walter


Cooper, A. Duff
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cope, Major Sir William
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Couper, J. B.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Robinson, Sir T. (Lane, Stretford)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Ropner, Major L.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dswerth, Putney)


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker K.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Sandon, Lord
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Watts, Sir Thomas


Savery, S. S.
Tasker, R, Inigo.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Met. (Renfrew, W.)
Templeton, W. P.
Walls, S. R.


Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Wiggins, William Martin


Shepperson, E. W.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Skelton, A. N.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Tomlinson, R. P.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dlne, C.)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Windsor Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
Withers, John James


Smithers, Waldron
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Waddington, R.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Sprot, Sir Alexander
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Ward, Lt.-Col, A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)



Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Weitm'land)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Warrender, Sir Victor
Captain Viscount Curzon and Major the Marquess of Titchfield.


Storry-Deans, R.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles



Streatfelld, Captain S. R.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and O[...]



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Sakiatvala, Shapurji


Ammon, Charies George
Hardie, George D.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Baker, J. (Wolverhamton, Bilston)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scrymgeour, E.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayday, Arthur
Scurr, John


Barnes, A.
Hayes, John Henry
Sexton, James


Barr, J.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bondfield, Margaret
Hirst, G. H.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shinwell, E.


Briant, Frank
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Broad, F, A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sitch, Charles H.


Bromfield, William
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bromley, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Morgan (Caterphilly)
Snell, Harry


Buchanan, G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cape, Thomas
Kelly, W. T.
Stamford, T. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, George
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lawrence, Susan
Sutton, J. E.


Connolly, M.
Lee, F.
Thurtle, Ernest


Cove, W. G.
Lindley, F. W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lowth, T.
Townend, A. E.


Day, Harry
Lunn, William
Varley, Frank B.


Dennison, R.
Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Viant, S. P.


Duncan, C.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Dunnico, H.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gardner, J. P.
March, S.
Wellock, Wilfred


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Montague, Frederick
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gibblns, Joseph
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gillett, George M.
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gosling, Harry
Palln, John Henry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Windsor, Walter


Greenall, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wright, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Riley, Ben
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves, T.
Ritson, J.
Mr. Paling and Mr. Charles Edwards.


Grundy, T. W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. P. O. (W. Brormwich)



Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. HARRIS: I beg to move, in page 3, line 10, after the word "mine," to insert the words "or quarry."
Perhaps the Minister will give me an assurance that the word "mine" covers the words "or quarry," but it is customary, in many Bills, to distinguish between a mine and a quarry. The word "mine," I am informed, does not necessarily cover the word "quarry." I should like an assurance from the Minister on that point. Perhaps he will ask' his advisers to make it quite clear that the word "mine" includes the word "quarry."

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman will find that "quarry" is, under the Factory and Workshops Act, included in the term "factory or workshop."

Sir HENRY SLESSER: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will examine this point more closely. I do not intend to develop it at any length, but I understand that certain quarries are, for the purposes of the Factory Act, stated to be factories, and there are others that are not factories. I do not think the word "quarry" "covers the word" factory." I think the Minister will find that, for some purposes, quarries are included in
the Mines Act as mines, and that for other purposes quarries are included in the Factory Act as factories, since industrial processes are carried on there, but that the word "quarry," used by itself, is neither a mine nor a factory for the purpose of the Rating Act. I should like to have the view of the Minister on that point.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The question has been examined by my expert officials at some length, because it has been raised by some of my hon. Friends, and, therefore, I think I can speak with some confidence on the matter. I would say that all the quarries which I have noticed will be included within the scope of the Bill. If there is any particular kind of quarry which the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind, and he will give me information on that point, I will either give him an assurance as to that particular quarry or I will take care that provision is made to meet the ease.

Sir H. SLESSER: The case I have in mind is a quarry where there is no mechanical process of working, and where power is not used, and yet the work done is clearly of a productive character, in the same way as in the case of a mine. But it is not a factory in any sense of the word, because no power is used there, and there is no mechanical process.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should like to have an assurance from the Minister on one point. I am very glad to hear from him that quarry is included, but I should like to ask for a specific illustration. Would a slate quarry or a sett quarry be included? In the case of a sett quarry, macadam is obtained from it for use on the roads. That is one kind of quarry on which I should like an assurance, and the other is a slate quarry.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; certainly, both those cases are included.

Mr. HARNEY: I have got before me the definition in the Factory Act and also the definition in the Mines Act. It is quite clear that quarries are not included in mines, and the only way in which you could get them included is under the Factories Act, where it says:
'Quarries,' that is to say, any place, not being a mine, in which persons work in
getting slate, stone, coprolites or other minerals.
In those circumstances, I think we do need some definite assurance that, say, the china clay mines in Cornwall, the granite quarries, the slate quarries, the quarries from which road stone is produced, places of that kind where real productive work is done, will be included in the rating provisions of this Bill.

Mr. HARRIS: Does the Minister object to the words being included? There seems to be some uncertainty in the public mind about it. Would it not strengthen the Bill if these words were included, so that he who runs may read?

Mr. DIXEY: Is a granite quarry included in the definition?

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Are limestone quarry, which are used so much for agriculture, also included?

Sir H. SLESSER: May I raise a new point? A quarry is only a factory at most for the purposes of the Factory Acts. It is very loose language to say a quarry is a factory. It is only deemed to be a factory for the purpose of regulations under the Factory Acts. Here you are dealing with a quarry for the purpose of rating, and it by no means follows that because, under the Factory Acts and certain regulations that control them, they are deemed to be factories (hey will be so regarded under this Act. I cannot understand why if the right hon. Gentleman intends to include quarries, he will not include the word.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot understand why hon. Members are so nervous. I have given assurance that I have looked into the matter and had it specifically examined, and I am quite confident that under the terms of the Bill quarries are included. My. hon. Friend asks me about granite quarries. A quarry is defined under the Factories and Workshops Acts as "any place not being a mine in which persons work in getting slate stone" and so forth. Granite is stone. Limestone is also stone. Surely the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) is forgetting Sub-section (2):
Save as aforesaid, the expressions 'factory' and 'workshop' have respectively the same meanings as in the Factory and Workshop Acts.
What could be plainer than that?

Mr. HARDIE: Would it not be better to have a definition in plain language? A mine could be described as; that which carries strata over and above what is being taken out, whereas a quarry is something that is open to the light. It would be far better to have a plain definition and get rid of all this muck.

Mr. KELLY: I want to be satisfied about the china, clay industry of Cornwall. I want to know if that has been-considered.

Mr. HARRIS: I ask leave to withdraw, on the Minister's assurance.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: In regard to the next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dunnico) and the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Miss Lawrence)—in page 3, line 10, after the word "or" to insert the words "for the purposes of trade or commerce or"—I do not know whether they wish to move that or whether they consider the point has already been discussed to a great extent on Clause 1.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: If this Amendment is moved, shall I be entitled to move to leave out paragraph (b)?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I shall not be able to allow a discussion on that Amendment, but hon. Members will be able to divide on the paragraphs indicated by the letters at the beginning.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: A general discussion will be taken on this Amendment?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is so.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is an Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham)—in page 3, to leave out lines 12 to 24—which seems to cover the whole of these paragraphs. Might it not be for the convenience of the Committee to have a general discussion on that?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am in the hands of those Members who have their Amendments on the Paper. I am prepared to call on the hon. Member for East Ham, North, now, but if her
Amendment is moved, the whole discussion must be taken on that, and I shall not be able to select either of the next two Amendments on the Paper.

Mr. RILEY: On a point of Order. May I ask whether you will be able to accept any Amendments dealing with paragraphs (a) to (f)?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already ruled on that. I cannot, after a discussion on this Amendment, allow a discussion on Amendments with regard to paragraphs indicated by letters. If and so far as hon. Members wish to take a Division on any of these particular Amendments indicated by letters after a general discussion, they can do so.

Mr. HARNEY: On a further point of Order. There is an Amendment further down that really deals with paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d).

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. and learned Member has followed what I said, he will know that I have already stated that if the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Miss Lawrence) moves the Amendment in her name, the Amendment to which the hon. and learned Member refers will fall, and will not be called.

Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 10, after the word "or," to insert the words "for the purposes of trade or commerce or."
This Amendment is a wide Amendment, It proposes to introduce the words "trade or commerce." Those two things are inseparable. In the whole long chain of business which begins for the first time with the law material and continues until the finished product reaches the consumer, you have one process. I do not mean merely by that, that one man's raw material is another man's finished article, but as between different classes of manufacturers you have wholesalers distributing right along from the introduction of the raw material to the finished product. Every producer undertakes, and necessarily undertakes, some of these operations; every producer is of necessity a salesman and engaged in the work of storage. That in itself complicates and discriminates entirely between one class and another class. [Interruption.] It is merely a question as to how far the business of warehousing and distribution
is carried on; whether it is carried on in the factory, or whether it is carried on outside the factory. You cannot say that there is any general rule upon the question. Some business people find it more advantageous to keep the greater part of this work in their own hands and in their own factory, and others find it more advantageous to specialise. You have the man who, inside his own factory, stores his own goods and also distributes goods to the wholesaler, and you have those other great distributive businesses which have grown up outside the factory. I say that these two things are part of the same process.
I will take one trade where the ordinary warehouse business and factory has to a great extent taken root and developed. I will take the trade of Nottingham. If hon. Members look at the admirable tables of rates, upon which some of us have been feeding ever since they were produced, they will see that the number of warehouses specially scheduled in Nottingham bears an extraordinarily high proportion of the rateable value attributed to mills and factories. That is due to the peculiar circumstances of the lace trade. I am very much concerned with this trade, and I have asked the Minister before now to give me an answer in regard to it, because in my humble capacity I am very closely connected with the trade, having been the workers' representative on the Lace Trade Board for a great number of years. The trade is a peculiar one. The lace manufacturers make the lace and send it to the warehouses. The thread winding and minor processes are done in great part by means of out-workers.
The lace warehouses of Nottingham are a great commercial undertaking, and do a certain amount of lace finishing work; but there are factories in Nottingham where they have their own warehouses, and there are warehouses in Nottingham where some additional processes are carried on. I want to be quite sure where the line is to be drawn, because that trade, in which I take an extraordinary interest, has suffered more bitterly from unemployment than any other trade in the country, and it is not all recorded unemployment. It is not the general custom of the trade for all the unemployed
workers to go to the Employment Exchange. The out-workers are not eligible for unemployment benefit. As a result, the amount of unemployment in the Nottingham lace trade is to a considerable extent unrecorded. I am against the principle of the Minister ladling out doles to productive industry, but if that is to be done I cannot see why' the lace trade in Nottingham should not get its share. The warehouse question does not merely affect the lace trade. You find that in the confectionery trade, and in the making of tinned foods, in exactly the same way the warehouse trade has, to a certain extent, taken root, so that where you had, say, a chocolate manufacturer making chocolates, warehousing and distributing them, you now have a separate establishment where nothing is done but the packing and distributing carried on in a separate way.
It is so in the tinned food trade. There are factories which make and distribute their own tinned goods. There are quite a number of large flourishing establishments in Liverpool which do nothing whatever but label and distribute other people's tinned goods; and the one is as large a part of productive industry as the other. It does not matter for the purposes of increasing employment and cheapening production whether you relieve the one or the other. If you cheapen production you encourage commerce, and if you cheapen commerce you encourage production. The one has exactly the same effect as the other. But the point I come back to is that you do more mischief than good if you discriminate between one man and his competitor. If you put one man out of business that is not compensated by increasing employment in another district, and, in addition, you have that friction which is a notorious cause of unemployment. That is why I am a little anxious at this wild incursion of the Minister of Health into a department which he has not studied and with which be is not acquainted.
We ought to have present with us the Minister of Labour as well as the President of the Board of Trade, who I wish was here not only physically but in charge of the Bill. The President of the Board of Trade is the Minister I should like to have seen in charge of the Bill, explaining its intricacies and the effect upon trade of differentiating between one
class of employment and another. I wish he was in charge of the Bill because he does understand the subject with which it deals. I do not want to make too long a speech at this late hour of the night, but I want to say emphatically that to do such a thing as this without consulting the industry concerned is to do something which no President of the Board of Trade and no Minister of Labour would do. When we introduce legislation affecting commercial business and trade Ministers take the utmost possible care to acquaint themselves with the habits and customs and even the prejudices of those engaged in the business, and there never has been an important Bill touching so many interests brought in with so little consultation. The amount of satisfaction with which the Bill is regarded in business circles can be gauged by the number of deputations which, day after day and hour after hour, have been beseeching the Chancellor of the Exchequer for some explanation as to its effect.

Sir K. WOOD: Asking for the scheme to be accelerated.

Miss LAWRENCE: Yes, and when it comes to the proper time I will say what I think about leaving people to starve for 18 months. Long before the Government took tip this question I spoke on behalf of the necessitous areas and the industries in those areas. Nobody can accuse me of having overlooked their interests. I cannot imagine a case which calls for more speedy action, and ask the Minister of Health to do justice and say that I have hardly ever made a speech on rating in which I did not emphasise the damage to industry and commerce of the rates in these depressed areas and the call there was for speedy relief. I do not wonder that half of these deputations say they are cut out and the other half are asking why they have to wait for 18 months. They are very unpleasant deputations for any Minister to meet; and the reason is the unbearable intricacies of this Bill, the imaginary lines which are drawn between interests, the postponement of relief until it is too late in the case of some of the worst industries. Many of them have been pushed over the edge into bankruptcy, and if many of them have to wait for 18 months they will
also go over the edge into bankruptcy. It is all due to the fantastic distinctions-which are made in this Bill. It is because this Bill is so unbearably and unnecessarily complicated that nothing can be done with it until so many months have passed. Here I am trying to remove one of the complications of the Bill. I cannot do more. Line by line and point by point I have been using what intelligence I possess in trying to remove the asperities of the Bill and in trying to give trade and industry something which will benefit them. To try to separate industry from commerce is an impossible thing and I ask the Minister to deal with the matter in the only reasonable way.

Mr. BATEY: I wish to support the Amendment because it is a widening Amendment. The Clause defines the expression "industrial hereditament" as a hereditament "occupied and used as a mine." I suggest to the Minister that the word "mine" is too narrow, and will exclude many things that come under the mining industry. The definition of the word "mine" in the Bill has the meaning assigned to it by Section 122 of the Coal Mines Act of 1911, where the word "mine" is given a very narrow construction as follows:
Mine' includes every shaft in the course of being sunk, and every level and inclined plane in the course of being driven, and all the shafts, levels, planes, works, tramway; and sidings, both below ground and above ground in and adjacent to and belonging to the mine, but does not include any part; of such premises on which any manufacturing process is carried on, other than a process ancillary to the getting, dressing, or preparation for sale of minerals.
I wish to ask whether certain things belonging to the mining industry will come under this Bill for the purpose of de-rating. For instance, there is the coal mine that has coal depots for the sale of coal. Will coal depots come under this de-rating scheme? We have in mind collieries which have their own coal staiths for the purpose of emptying coal out of ships. Others have coke ovens and plant for dealing with by-products. There are also washeries for the washing of coal. These apparently would not come within the narrow definition of "mine" to which I have referred and one would like to be clear
as to whether or not they will be included in the Government's scheme of de-rating. Is it the Government's purpose to assist the industry by not merely de-rating the mines, but also these other necessary things which have grown up around collieries for the purposes of, carrying on the business of the collieries.

Sir J. SANDEMAN ALLEN: I found-difficulty in following the point of the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Miss Lawrence). I do not see how the trades to which she refers can be injured if relief is given to productive industries in this country. In the first place, it is quite clearly laid down that only a certain amount of money is available for this purpose and the primary object of these proposals is to relieve British industries in their productive capacity so that the cost of production may be lowered. That I can quite clearly understand. Directly you import into the consideration of that matter questions of warehousing and commerce you open up an enormous field, but I fail to see how trade and commerce generally can be injured by the relief of productive industries. It seems to me that on the contrary it will help trade and commerce. Liverpool has been mentioned, and the tinned goods trade has been mentioned, but the great bulk of the production of tinned goods is outside this country, and any relief of this kind which you give must be a benefit to the whole of industry. Therefore while I, for one, would like to see shopkeepers and merchants and warehousemen relieved as much as possible, that involves a different principle from the principle in the Bill, and I think we ought to keep our minds at present quite clearly to the one point. We ought to realise that the main object of the Bill is to cheapen the cost of production at home so as to enable us to compete and develop our trade and commerce and hold our own abroad as well as in the home market. If we keep that point clearly in mind, bearing also in mind the fact that we have only a limited amount of money at our disposal, I see no difficulty in the question which is before us.

Mr. HARNEY: I find great difficulty in understanding this Clause, and I would like to put my difficulty before the right hon. Gentleman. According to my
reading of this Clause we must first look for a factory, workshop, or mine, and having found one that answers the description of a factory, workshop, or mine, primarily used for any of the purposes (a) to (f) then we are no longer to regard it as a factory, a workshop or a mine for the purposes of the Measure. That seems to be the structure of the Clause. If the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to refer to the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901—[Interruption]. I will be very patient with any interruptions, but not when they come from Members who have been in the Library or the Smokeroom, and have no idea about the subject we are discussing. Perhaps some of those who interrupt me will tell me what they think of the definition. The Bill refers to the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, as the Measure in which we will find the definition of a factory or workshop. In other words, the Bill says, "If you want to know what we mean by a factory or workshop, you must look at this Act of Parliament." I look at the Act, and find this:
Where a place situate within the close, curtilage, or precincts forming a factory or workshop is solely used for some purpose other than the manufacturing process or handicraft carried on in the factory or workshop, that place shall not be deemed to form part of the factory or workshop for the purposes of this Act.
So you have it clearly said that a dwelling-house used as a retail shop, a portion of premises used for distributive business, a portion of premises used for storage, shall not be a factory or workshop. Still you have this Bill saying that if these portions which cannot possibly be a factory or workshop are the portions of the factory or workshop for which the premises are primarily used, it is not to be a factory or workshop. Or, to put it in other words, the surveyor, having looked at the concern, and having come to the conclusion that it is a factory or workshop within the meaning of the definition, and that therefore not one of these things which are excluded can have been within it, has then to say, "If I find the things that cannot possibly be within the factory or workshop are those for which the factory or workshop are primarily used, then it is not a factory or workshop within the meaning of the Act." The effect must be, if these words are
not altered, when it comes before some Judge to construe it, that he will have to do one of two things. He will have to reject paragraphs (a) to (f), and he will have to say, "How can I exclude from the general definition of factory or workshop what never could be included in a factory or workshop? I shall have to strike my pen through these words, or if I do not, I shall have to give to factory or workshop a meaning different to the meaning that it has in the Factory and Workshop Act." How can a Judge do that? I see the right hon. Gentleman laughing. I have had some experience of bad Acts of Parliament before, and is it any very great hardship on the Government if, in a modest way, I attempt to point out the difficulties?
When you look at the general idea, you get your factory and workshop and your dwelling-house or storage part, and how is any surveyor to say what is the primary purpose? Take a place I was at the other day—Carr's biscuit factory in Carlisle. There, the most noticeable part of the whole concern is the place where all the cases of biscuits are put before being passed out of the premises. At one end there is a large space given to the ingredients, and in the central portion there is the actual manipulating machinery mixing up and stamping out. At the further end is the place where, when the biscuits are made, they are put in cases, and the cases are all taken in order to be passed out. It is one continuous process from the coming in of the material to the passing out of the biscuits. Therefore, if you look at this place you find that the primary portion of it is given over to storage and the distributing business. It is not to be deemed a factory at all. If I were a surveyor and looked at Carr's place, I would say the primary purposes were the storage or distribution, if judged by space and the number of persons Employed. So I do submit to the Minister that the proper thing to do is this: Make up your minds what is the factory or workshop that you wish to de-rate, give a definition and if they answer to it nothing further need be done, but if it is connected with something else, and that something else answers the primary purpose, then there will be-confusion which may make it absolutely impossible for any Judge to construe the words.

Mr. RILEY: I should like to emphasise in a practical way the legal difficulties to which the last speaker has referred. I want to raise a point which has not been referred to and that is the unfair differentiation which is drawn in the Clause between the trading concerns of municipal authorities and private undertakings doing the same class of trade. As I understand this Clause, taking the Section (e) the purposes of a public supply undertaking are to be exempt. You have the case of municipal gas undertakings, which not only supply gas but manufacture coke and other by-products for which they have to find a market in the open field in competition with the coke and by-products manufactured by private firms. In my own constituency our municipal gas undertaking in the manufacture of coke is in very keen competition with a large private coke-producing undertaking. A private coke-producing firm will be entitled to 75 per cent. reduction of its rates, but the municipal undertaking will be entitled to no reduction at all. Can the Minister justify this overloading of the municipal undertakings in their competition with private firms? There are large municipal corporations which not only run their own tramway services but make the trams in their own workshops. Those trams will have to be made in competition with trams offered by private firms. This Clause will relieve the private manufacturer of 75 per cent. of his rates, but gives no relief to the municipality. Can the Minister justify this unfair treatment towards authorised trading concerns carried on by the community for the public service? We have the same kind of thing in the case of municipal sewerage undertakings. Many by-products are produced at sewerage works and sold in the open market in competition with the products of private firms. I submit that the Clause is unfair, and that these municipalities ought to have the same measure of relief.

Mr. KELLY: The Mover of this Amendment referred to two or three of the trades of this country in which he said trade and commerce would be affected by the restrictions placed on this particular section of the Bill. A reference was made particularly to the net and lace trade as carried on in Nottingham, but I would remind the Committee that this affects
not only Nottingham but Derby, Somerset and a great deal of the county of Derbyshire and Staffordshire. If the work which is conducted in establishments outside the main factory were conducted inside the main factories it would he considered as part of the organisation which would be relieved of 75 per cent. of its rates, but because there has grown up in the industry a method of conducting it which enables many people to do it in small places according to the extensions they have had up to the present time, these people will not have the direct relief which is allowed under this Bill to certain productive industries. I do not know whether this is the stage where we are going to have set down a real definition as to what is a productive industry. That will certainly be an interesting explanation because I have heard many times many of those who have been sitting as arbitrators in dealing with some of the great industries of this country—

It being Eleven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order).

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I beg to move to leave out the word "now" and at the end of the. Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
I will explain the purpose which I have in view in moving the rejection of this Bill. I would remind the House that it has been customary in years past during the passage of this Bill through the House to have a discussion on certain works which arise. The last occasion when this subject was discussed was three years ago, and during the period that has elapsed since, important progress has been made in certain vital directions concerning the life of London and the work of the London County Council. Perhaps I might further remind hon. Members that the London County Council
disposes of revenue of £22,000,000 sterling every year, and it looks after the welfare of a population amounting to 4,750,000. It also deals with all those matters which affect the life and concern the health and welfare of all the citizens in the county area.
There are two directions in which great progress has been made within the last two years to which I desire to call attention. The first is the problem of the London traffic. Since the time I have alluded to certain important events have occurred. The first resulted from the problem of Waterloo Bridge and in regard to that difficulty we are indebted to the valuable Report which has been issued by the Lee Commission. That Report is perhaps the most comprehensive and valuable Report on the transport problem and its difficulties which we have had for many years. Two of the recommendations included in that Report have advanced a long way in recent months. One of them is the Charing Cross Bridge scheme which it seems likely will reach a practical stage in a very short time: and the other is the Victoria Dock Road scheme which has reached a stage of agreement between the parties concerned which may and we hope will make a substantial step forward towards realisation. Those two schemes may be said to deal with the problem of traffic in Central London and in Eastern London, and, in these circumstances, I think it is not unreasonable that the needs of Western London should receive some consideration. In regard to that question, as one who is concerned more particularly with Western London, and has given some study to the problems of traffic and transport facilities in that part of the Metropolis, I venture to say that two great improvements should figure early in any list of priorities which may be established in regard to those different improvements. I would mention the Cromwell Road Bridge, the construction of which has for a long time been a project—

Mr. SCURR: On a point of Order. In the Preamble of this Bill it is laid down that:
Whereas Estimates have been prepared by the various Committees of the Council of the amounts which may he required for the purposes of expenditure on capital account and of loans during the financial period 1928–1929 in the execution of the powers and duties respectively delegated to those Committees and all those Estimates have
been considered by the Finance Committee of the Council and submitted by that Committee to the Council and the Estimates as so submitted hare been adopted by the Council;
And whereas the sums estimated to be so required as aforesaid for expenditure on capital account during the financial period 1928–1029 are set out as respects expenditure under the existing powers of the Council in Part I of the Schedule to this Act—
And whereas the sums specified in the said Part I of the Schedule to this Act art to the extent set out in Part V of the said Schedule sums…
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the question which the hon. and gallant Member is raising concerning the Cromwell Road Bridge cannot be discussed, as it is not included in these Estimates, is not included in Part I of the Schedule, and is not included in Part V of the Schedule.

Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: May I reply to that point?

Mr. SPEAKER: The only point that arises is that no question that does not come within the Bill can be discussed on Third Heading. The hon. and gallant Member, in discussing the Third Reading, must confine himself to what is actually in the Bill.

Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: With regard to that point, instead of pursuing my argument in that particular form, I will, with your permission, Sir, put it in another way. There are provisions in the Bill for expenditure, on street improvements, bridges and other objects, amounting to £740,000, and I would like to ask my hon. Friend who, I understand, will in the course of the Debate reply for the London County Council, whether the provisions which the council has in contemplation for that purpose contain any proposals to advance the construction of the Cromwell Road bridge, and whether that sum of money includes any provision for a survey or other preparation towards the reconstruction of Wandsworth Bridge—projects which I venture to think are of extreme importance, and might easily deserve a higher standard of priority than some of those which are probably included in the figure of £740,000 to which I have referred.

Mr. SPEAKER: Those particular bridges are not mentioned in the Bill or in the Schedule to the Bill, and the hon. and gallant Member is not entitled to
refer to them. He must confine himself to dealing with questions that are actually mentioned in the Bill itself.

Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: Another aspect of the activities of the London County Council which I think will be found to be included in the Bill is concerned with the £7,500,000 which the Bill includes for housing. This sum is proposed to be devoted to various housing schemes which the County Council have in hand, and to slum clearance schemes which are projected. I think we should all heartily congratulate the London County Council on the progress which they have made in relieving the housing shortage in London by the provision of housing estates on the outskirts of our great city. We also acknowledge the progress they have made in slum clearance schemes, many of which will be included in the sum of £7,500,000 in the present Estimate. I would like also, in order, if possible to be in order, to ask whether in that sum there is included any grant towards the reconditioning and reconstruction of houses in the inner circle of London, which is vitally necessary to meet the needs of those of our citizens who cannot avail themselves of the council's housing estates on the outskirts of London. There are two means of dealing with the problem of housing in London which the County Council is pursuing; one is on the outskirts and the other is slum clearance and rehousing schemes in inner London, of which we have seen evidence in certain parts of London. In the three years which have elapsed since we last discussed the subject, great progress has been made in that direction also.
A few months ago, the foundation was laid of the Ossulston Street rehousing scheme, a contribution to Which has been included in the £7,500,000. On that occasion, the Minister of Health made reference to plans and proposals for reconstruction and reconditioning. I would like to know whether anything is included under that head in the Estimates. If not, I would suggest to the London County Council that they should pay attention to this aspect of the question and devote a substantial sum of their unexpended balances mentioned in the Schedule of the Bill for such purposes. I would suggest that, in order to assist in im-
proving the housing conditions in Inner London, the County Council might cause a survey to be made, or they might collect information in the hands of local authorities and review the housing situation apart from and without interfering with the slum clearance and rehousing schemes that they have in hand. Out of their unexpended balances, I suggest that a large annual sum, equivalent to a rate of 3d. or 4d., might be allocated each year for the purposes I have indicated. I suggest that it might be done in the following way: that sums of money might be placed at the disposal of the borough council, and even of Publicity Utility societies.

Mr. HARRIS: On a point of Order. Are we to understand that an hon. Member has a right, in considering a Money Bill, to discuss something that is quite outside the scope and proposals of the Bill; that is to say, that we should allot certain money that is being raised under this Bill to borough councils?

Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: Arising out of that point of Order. I think the Bill includes a provision for loans to the borough councils, and I am referring to the unexpended balances.

Mr. SPEAKER: There are undoubtedly large sums in the Bill to be allotted for building purposes, and, so long as the hon. Member confines himself to the particular purposes to which these sums are to be expended, he will be in order; but, if he goes outside them, he will not be in order.

Mr. SCURR: Is it in order to indicate, outside what is within the scope of this Bill, how the money that is to be raised by it should be expended?

Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to housing, there is a very large sum allotted to carrying out schemes. The hon. Member is entitled to suggest how those schemes should be carried out.

Mr. SCURR: The Schedule refers to estimates submitted to committees of the Council and approved by the Council, and those schemes are specific in the sums which have been voted under this Budget.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think the hon. Member is entitled to say how the money is spent.

Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I am addressing myself to the subject of loans to Borough Councils and the purposes to-which they are directed. The loans are actually provided for in the Schedule. I am also referring to the unexpended balances, which are also mentioned in the Schedule and which would be within the scope of the Bill, certainly within the scope of the London County Council. Some of these funds might be devoted in the manner I have outlined, that is, placed at the disposal, by loan or otherwise, of local authorities to assist them in carrying out this work of reconstruction and reconditioning, which does not at present proceed as rapidly as some of us would wish. The local authority is often deterred by hesitation to incur the financial commitments necessarily involved. Here I would refer to the advisability of a comprehensive scheme started by the County Council and applied to the whole of London. It would have this advantage over any piecemeal scheme.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's remarks seem more suitable to the County Council.

Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: In the circumstances I will not pursue the matter further. I should like to refer to two other matters. If I am not supported by the House I will not proceed, but I think the importance of the work carried on by the county council and the volume of expenditure warrant a useful discussion such as I have introduced. The other two points are open spaces and playing fields. The work of the county council in this useful direction extends considerably beyond the value of the actual amount of money mentioned in the Schedule. Thanks to the benevolence of private benefactors and the co-operation with the county council of local authorities we—I am speaking of a society with which I am connected—hope to provide not less than 250 acres of open space near the new St. Helier housing scheme, of which 150 will be playing fields themselves, stretching over a belt of not less than two miles long, and this will certainly prove a valuable feature of the new housing scheme. In regard to that, as well as to the progress made in education, and particularly the provision of improved schools to take the place of the old—these are matters in which I beg
to offer the London County Council my hearty congratulations on the progress that has been made since last we discussed this Bill.

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
I can assure the House that I am not going to be more than three minutes. As the House knows, the London County Council's Money Bill extends to the amount of £10,000,000, and many of us London Members feel that that £10,000,000 should have some sort of discussion in the House before it is allowed to pass. As hon. Members know, we hoped that the Motion would have taken place at 7.30, but it has taken place at 11 o'clock. I do not intend to amplify the various points which I wanted to raise. I do think that we as a House ought to be willing to hear a few words from one of the members of the London County Council on some of the more important points in the Bill. What I should like to know, among other things, is, for instance, under item No. 2 of the Schedule, which starts "making, widening or improving streets, etc.," as to whether that includes all the various roundabout schemes for traffic which are being tried in London. I should like to hear from the hon. Member whether he considers that they are an improvement or not. Personally, I think that they are a great improvement.

Mr. SCURR: On a further point of Order. I suggest, with all respect, that the hon. and gallant Member is raising questions which are not in this Bill but which concern another authority altogether—the London Traffic Advisory Committee.

Captain HUDSON: On that point, then, why are we discussing this Bill if we are not allowed to discuss these points?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am in a difficulty as regards to what is in order and what is not. There are many things in the Schedule, but as I understand it, it is merely the allocation of money for present purposes which have been decided upon by the County Council. If these matters have been decided upon by the County Council it does not seem to me to be a suitable occasion to discuss the matter.

Captain HUDSON: We are discussing the sum of £10,000,000 which is to come from this House, and therefore I want to find out exactly what this sum of £10,000,000 is to be spentupon. In Parts X and XX of the Schedule, there is the question of the rebuilding of Waterloo Bridge and the rebuilding of Lambeth Bridge, and I think that a short account of what exactly is to be done with regard to those two bridges would be of extreme interest, anyhow to London Members and to people dwelling in, London constituencies. As regards Lambeth Bridge, I have heard that at one time we had a Bill through this House for Lambeth Bridge, and that the plans which were then passed have been very materially altered by the London County Council, and that the present plans are entirely different. I should like to hear, if the hon. Member chooses to answer, if that is so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Time!"] There is only one more point I want to raise, and I promise you that I will sit down then. It is the question of the County Hall. I would like to know, under item No. 11 in the Schedule, whether there is any idea on the part of the County Council to finish the County Hall. It is an absolute disgrace to a city like London that the County Hall should be lop-sided and should look as if half of it had been brought down by an earthquake. I hope the County Council will add the other bit to the County Hall and make it what it should be, a building well worthy of London. I wish we could have discussed the various items in the Bill, but as the hour is so late I will sit down; but I hope the House will allow a representative of the County Council to tell us something about this enormous sum of £10,000,000 which is being spent for London government.

Sir GEORGE HUME: We of the London County Council do not regret that the House of Commons take an interest in the work that is being done on the other side of the river. I will reply to the specific question as to what items of work are included in the estimate for improvements. There is the Old Street and Kingsland Road improvement, which is extremely important and is now being proceeded with and for which we require money. The Capel Street and Brick Lane improvement we have to deal with, also Lambeth Bridge, Waterloo
Bridge, and the widening of the Strand. It is due to the House, and I am glad to be able to say a word about Lambeth Bridge. The plans which are now being made for the construction of that bridge differ from the plans which were before the House when the Lambeth Bridge Bill was going through the House. As soon as it was realised, on the advice of the engineers and architects, that it would be necessary to alter the plans, we were extremely anxious that Parliament should be made aware of the fact. In another place, the procedure is such that a matter of that kind can be brought forward by Motion, and the Chairman of our Parliamentary Committee, who is also a Member of that House, took the opportunity of bringing the matter before the House, with the result that a Select Committee was set up by the House of Lords to go into the question. The Select Committee has been examining the matter and has taken evidence from our chief engineer and the architect, and has adjourned in order to bring the matter before the Fine Arts Commission, for their opinion.
It is due to the House that I should let the House know that the design is being altered, and I hope the House will think that it is being improved. When the Bill was before Parliament, it was proposed to build a bridge of five steel arches, faced with granite, supported with granite piers, the arches to be elliptical in outline. A design showing the completed bridge was on exhibition in the House for a long time. As the result of detailed examination, it has been found that the attempt to face the bridge with granite would produce an unsatisfactory structure for modern traffic conditions apart from the fact that such a scheme would be attended by architectural disadvantages. In the circumstances, the County Council arranged for Sir Reginald Blomfield to go into the question afresh with his officers, and as a result he came to the conclusion that the most satisfactory treatment of the bridge would be obtained by the use of steel arches, not faced with granite, segmental in shape. The Act of 1924 is silent on the question of design, but the Council thought that, having regard to the passing of this Bill, Parliament should be informed of this change of
design. The County Council are satisfied that from the point of view of utility and on aesthetic grounds the modified design possesses practical advantages.
It is important to proceed with Lambeth Bridge without delay owing to the absence of any facilities for cross river vehicular traffic between Westminster and Vauxhall Bridge, which is a source of great inconvenience, especially as regards commercial traffic. This bridge will naturally relieve to a certain extent the present traffic at congested points adjacent to the northern and southern approaches to Westminster Bridge, particularly as certain widenings are being carried out north and south of the river at Lambeth which will facilitate access to the new bridge and divert a considerable amount of traffic which is now using Westminster Bridge. Hon. Members will agree that Westminster Bridge is congested, and at times is almost impassable to rapid traffic. In particular it will take a certain portion of the traffic going to and from Victoria. The expenditure on the widening and other works is estimated at something like £200,000. If it is desired, it could be arranged for the old design and the new design to be exhibited in one of the Committee Booms. The round-about scheme has nothing to do with the county council and on that point it is not necessary for me to say anything. As regards Waterloo Bridge the House knows that there is a big proposal now in the air—namely, a new Charing Cross bridge, the removal of Charing Cross Station to the south side of the river. In connection with Waterloo Bridge the Government have made a suggestion that if the county council reconstruct Waterloo Bridge on the lines laid down by the Royal Commission, that something like 75 per cent. will be borne by national sources. Everything now depends on what is going to happen to Charing Cross Bridge. The matter is closely under discussion, and if Charing Cross Bridge is decided upon I have not the slightest doubt that Waterloo Bridge will be carried through on the lines suggested by the Royal Commission. The question of the County Hall has been raised. The county council realise that it is unfortunate that the wing has not been erected but hon. Members will remember that at the election a few years ago the cry was, "Housing first," and there was also the
difficulty the council had in getting the necessary skilled workers to carry out their housing problems. Hon. Members must also realise that the cost of housing is extremely heavy, and as the London County Council have incurred great expenditure under this head it was decided that during the last three years it was scarcely in keeping with the slogan, "Houses first," that the council should spend a lot of money on an extension of the County Hall.

Mr. SPEAKER: The expenditure on the building of the new wing is scarcely included in the Bill, as the sum of money is only £22,000, and that sum cannot contemplate the building of the wing.

Sir G. HUME: That sum is not for construction but for the preparation of plans. As regards re-conditioning, the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. Tasker), Chairman of the Building Committee, will be in a position to deal with that point. I will not weary the House further. I do not think I have omitted to reply to any of the points raised and which have been in order.

Mr. TASKER: Certain questions have been asked by the hon. and gallant Member for East Fulham (Colonel Vaughan-Morgan) and he is entitled to an answer. He asked what was being done about the re-conditioning of houses. If he will refer to Section 57 of the Town Planning Act of 1919 and its re-enactment in the Housing Act of 1925, he will find that power is given to the Metropolitan borough councils to spend money in re-conditioning houses. Since the House passed that Act £515,835 has been spent in the various Metropolitan boroughs. The fact that there are large unexpended balances is due to two causes. The first is the want of labour. I refer not only to the operatives actually building the structure, but the operatives Employed in making the various building materials. It has been with profound regret that the County Council have from time to time been compelled to buy various articles abroad. The whole of this expenditure has been increasing as labour became available, and the unexpended balances are due to the fact that we have not been able to spend the money. But the expenditure last year was £5,500,000, which is the largest
on record, and we have budgeted for yet a larger sum this year. Far from blaming the London County Council for the want of houses, the complaint should be addressed to the Liberal party. The housing problem is entirely due to the infatuation of the deluded Liberal part—

Mr. SPEAKER: This is not a suitable opportunity for raising that question.

Mr. TASKER: Perhaps I ought to tell the House that we have built down at Becontree a town and not a dump. We are in course of building another town at Castlenau. The County Council are perfectly willing to increase the grant hitherto made, in order that the dreadful conditions under which many of our fellow-citizens live may be brought to an end.

Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: After the explanation that has been given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

MR. SPEAKEK'S RETIREMENT BILL.

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

MILITARY MANOEUVRES, 1928 (MILITARY MANOEUVRES ACTS, 1897 AND 1911 (ORDER-IN-COUNCIL)).

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying His Majesty to make an Order-in-Council under the Military Manoeuvres Acts, 1897 and 1911, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 19th day of March last.
I ought to offer an explanation of this Resolution, which, as the House is aware, is of a purely formal character and instituted by the Act of 1897, which requires an Order-in-Council to be submitted to His Majesty and to lie on the Table of the House for 30 days. Owing to some mistake, last year the Order-in-Council was
not available in the Vote Office. It has been made available this year. It provides for no expenditure other than that dealt with in the Army Estimates, and is necessary in order to set up the Military Manoeuvres Commission, which has to make the arrangements for the manoeuvres to take place in August next.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I understood when the hon. Gentleman began his remarks that he was not going to proceed with this Motion to-night at such a late hour. This is an important matter, involving a huge area, and an indeterminate amount of compensation. It is outrageous that it should be brought before Parliament at this time of night, and, with great respect to the Financial Secretary to the War Office, on whom I cast no reflection whatever, I think the Secretary of State for War in whose name the Motion appears on the Paper should be here himself to present it. I think it is discourteous to the House that he is not here. While it is true that this year the Order in Council is available, there is no map. Maps have been deposited at the War Office and the Privy Council Office, and I would ask the hon. Gentleman in another year, if he wishes to get a Motion of this kind through without trouble, to have made available for Members a map of the area which it is intended to desecrate with tanks and cavalry, horse and foot, and artillery. I object to the Order on several grounds.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: State them next year.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not know that Devonshire is included in the area and perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will bear with me while I state my objections. I would first ask how much compensation has been paid in previous years. Farmers by no means object to these manoeuvres. They long for tanks and the "dragons" and the "whippets" to come along the rural roads, because then they can put in for compensation—and get it, on a very handsome scale. Two or three years ago when we had manoeuvres, a friend of mine prayed that the tanks would come down the drive of his estate, because the road was in extremely bad order. His prayer was answered and when I last saw
him, he had a beautiful new road provided by the War Office at the expense of the taxpayers.

Mr. CAMPBELL: And he is still a friend of yours?

Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: Oh, yes, I am not saying, therefore, that the farmers object, because the soldiers spend money and make themselves helpful. I had the pleasure of seeing manoeuvres, and from that point of view, there is no objection to them. But every year there is encroachment on the common land of the country for manoeuvring purposes. Practically the whole of Salisbury Plain is now in War Office occupation. They retain the area which they recently took over in the Surrey hills. We had almost a revolution started by my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) who headed a deputation of the lords and deputy-lieutenants and magistrates of the county to the War Office threatening passive resistance, and Heaven knows what, if the War Office did not keep off the beautiful Surrey commons. The War Office still hold on to various other places on the coast. In spite of promises given in this House, they keep their grip on Cuckmere Haven, a beautiful area, which is used for tank target practice or some such purpose. In spite of that, every year they come to us; one year it is Hampshire, the next year it is Wiltshire, and this year it is Essex, Sussex, Surrey and areas in that part of England. I think that the War Office have enough ground on Salisbury Plain and elsewhere without destroying grazing ground, hedgerows, fields, and carriage drives, and I want to know why they cannot carry out their exercises, field manoeuvres, picnics, and all the rest of it on Salisbury Plain, without inflicting the country with the cost of carrying them out on fertile agricultural ground and in the beautiful scenery in the Eastern Counties.
I look upon these manoeuvres as a ridiculous waste of time and money. Every war has found us with the tactics of the last war embedded in the minds of the generals and leaders of our Armies, and they have had to lose a few battles before
they have been able to find out the new tactics. A great part of these manoeuvres are also occupied with the Officers' Training Corps and school boys, whose training is not up-to-date, is not serious, and it is really a waste of time and money. After we have agreed in principle to sign the Kellogg Treaty outlawing war, why spend money like this to compensate farmers who will be damaged by the tanks, the cavalry, and the foot soldiers?

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying His Majesty to make an Order in Council under the Military Manœuvres Acts, 1897 and 1911, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 19th day of March last."—[Mr. Duff Cooper.]

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1936, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the rural district of Weymouth and parts of the rural districts of Dorchester and Wareham and Purbeck, in the county of Dorset, which was presented on the 24th day of May, 1928, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity
(Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban districts of Long Sutton and Sutton Bridge, the rural district of East Elloe, and part of the rural district of Boston, in the parts of Holland, in the county of Lincoln, which was presented on the 10th day of May, 1928, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the rural district of Oswestry, in the county of Salop, and for the amendment of the Oswestry Electric Lighting Order, 1924, which was presented on the 24th day of May, 1928, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the rural district of Skipton, in the West Riding of the county of York, which was presented on the 22nd day of May, 1928, be approved.—[Colonel Ashley.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Eight Minutes before Twelve o'clock.